Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dalton-in-Furness Urban District Council Bill,

Hereford Corporation Bill,

Merton and Morden Urban District Council Bill,

Solihull Urban District Council Bill,

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Hornchurch Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered:

Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Private Bills,

Ordered, That Standing Orders 237 and 265, relating to Private Bills, be suspended until the Summer Adjournment.

Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered on the day following the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.

Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.

Ordered, That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendment shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which

the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ripon) Bill [Lords,]

Read a Second time, and committed.

EAST INDIA (BUDGET).

Address for Return,
of the Budget of the Governor-General of India in Council for 1936–37."—[Mr. Butler.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY (LASCAR AGREEMENTS).

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is able to indicate the terms of the lascar agreements prepared by the Indian Government and signed under the Government's supervision; and what organisations representative of the lascars have been consulted in connection with the drafting of such agreements?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the form of lascar agreement used for voyages to this country. In addition to the compulsory stipulations contained in this form, the Government of India have approved certain voluntary stipulations which may be entered into by mutual consent. Three other forms of lascar agreement are in use. There are at present no copies of these available for distribution in this country, but I will ask the Government of India to forward a supply. I have no information regarding the second part of the question, but will inquire.

Mr. SMITH: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us with whom these mutual arrangements are made—who are the responsible authorities that make the arrangements as to the wages of lascar seamen?

Mr. BUTLER: I have made inquiries on that point, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Mr. LOGAN: Would it be possible to let me have a copy of this arrangement?

ELECTIONS.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House information regarding the preparations now being made with a view to the provincial elections to be held in India and Burma under the Government of India Act; whether, seeing that no voter will be placed on the electoral roll by virtue of the educational qualification, except upon personal application accompanied by examination certificates, he will arrange for the educational lists to be consulted by the authorities concerned; whether the polling stations will be so located that electors do not have to travel many miles to vote; and what will be the maximum distance that electors will have to travel at the forthcoming elections?

Mr. BUTLER: The provincial Governments in most, if not all, Provinces have already published rules in regard to the preparation of the electoral rolls. For the educational qualification the voter is required to produce documentary evidence, but not necessarily the original certificates. If the hon. Member's suggestion is that the voter should be relieved by the authorities of the responsibility of producing evidence of his qualifications, I am afraid that this would not be practicable. As regards the last two parts of the question, I am confident that the authorities will provide as many polling stations and as near to the residences of the voters as considerations of the available staff for controlling them permit; but I am unable to say what will be the greatest distance in any part of India that any elector will have to traverse to record his vote.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not much more desirable to place the onus on the authorities of disproving the qualifications of applicants for the right to vote; and will the hon. Gentleman not try to get information as to the maximum distance that any elector has to travel to vote—a matter the importance of which he will understand?

Mr. BUTLER: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the House considered this matter when it had before it the original Government of India Bill, and it was found to be impossible to place upon the authorities the onus of searching records, which might

be very old, with respect to qualifications which could not be traced. With regard to the distance which it is necessary to travel to polling stations, I think that, if the hon. Member refers to paragraph 26 of the Lothian Report, he will see some sort of idea given of the distances which people may have to travel.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the admitted two acts of official interference in a recent municipal election; and what steps are proposed to guard against official interference with the course of the elections to be held in Burma and in India under the Government of India Act, 1935?

Mr. BUTLER: I am not aware of the incidents to which the hon. Member alludes, but I am confident that the Orders in Council recently approved by this House and the rules made in pursuance of them afford no scope for official action in the elections to the Legislatures in India and Burma other than what is necessary for their proper and orderly conduct.

Mr. GALLACHER: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to interference of this character; and will he take the matter up?

Mr. BUTLER: If the hon. Member can give me information I will look into it, but I do not think it would be wise to mix up municipal elections with the other elections.

PEASANTS' CONFERENCE, DARBHANGA.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a peasants' conference which was held at Darbhanga on 4th June was ordered to be broken up by the release of elephants; and whether he will issue instructions for the use of elephants for such purposes to be discontinued?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand that an attempt, including the driving of an elephant into the crowd, was made by agents of the estate to break up a Kisan meeting. There is no question of action of this kind being taken under the orders of officers of Government, and there is no occasion to issue any instructions in the matter.

Mr. GALLACHER: Was any action taken by the Government against those who were responsible for driving an elephant into the crowd?

Mr. BUTLER: I am afraid that the Government cannot make themselves responsible for all private actions in India.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Could not some of these elephants be brought to England?

Mr. LOGAN: Would they not be useful in the Division Lobbies?

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India is supporting the employers in securing legislation which will enable them to forfeit eight days' wages of their employés as a penalty for certain strikes, and that protests have been made by trades unions in India; and whether the Viceroy proposes to give his assent to the proposed legislation?

Mr. BUTLER: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the proviso to Section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act passed in April, 1936, by the Indian Legislature. I understand the effect is to restrict existing powers of forfeiture and not to confer any new power. The Act received the Assent of the Governor-General on 23rd April.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the recent trial of Iqbal Singh and Sonranoth Lahiri, on 4th June, before the presidency magistrate of Bombay, the magistrate, after conviction of one of the accused, exercised his discretion under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code to refuse to order confiscation of certain money found in the house of the said accused, and ordered the money to be returned to the accused; that the Government of Bombay then served an order on the presidency magistrate restraining him from parting with the money, thereby preventing the carrying out of an order lawfully made; and whether he will cause steps to be taken to prevent such executive interference with the judicial authorities?

Mr. BUTLER: The money was declared forfeited by the Local Government under Section 17E of the Criminal Law Amendment Act on the ground that it was intended to be used for the purposes of an unlawful association, and my Noble Friend is not prepared to interfere in the matter.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this conflict between two different legal authorities is likely to bring the whole question of law into disrepute?

Mr. BUTLER: My Noble Friend is satisfied that the local Government acted under the section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act under which they were entitled to act.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not this more or less cancel out the effectiveness of the Indian judiciary?

Mr. BUTLER: No, Sir. The local Government acted under the provisions of a certain Act, and the reasons they did so was to stop the money being used for purposes of an unlawful association.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British advisers have recently been acting with the chiefs or heads of any native governments in South-Western Abyssinia with the approval of His Majesty's Government or the Government of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan; whether any such advisers have recently been withdrawn or recalled; and, if so, for what reasons?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The answer to the first part of the question is, No, Sir. The second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a native government or governments now function in all or part of South-Western Abyssinia; whether order is being maintained in that region; whether, in order to preserve peace and order in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, steps will be taken to assist such native governments; and what response has been made to any recent requests from such governments for


assistance in money or ammunition from His Majesty's Government or the Government of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan?

Mr. EDEN: As I informed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 22nd June last, the few Amhara officials remaining in Western Abyssinia to-day are not in a position, owing to the hostility of the Galla population, to exercise any authority. Reports have recently been received from His Majesty's Consul at Gore that very disturbed conditions continue to prevail in his district. Communications between Gore and the interior are extremely uncertain, and the road between Gore and Gambeila is also unsafe. There are at present in the unoccupied portions of Abyssinia, including the Gore consular district, many independent bands of Amhara soldiery living on the country, who are in frequent conflict with the local tribes. As there are a number of foreign missionaries and traders and various isolated settlers in the unoccupied portions of Western Abyssinia, His Majesty's Consul at Gore has been authorised at his discretion to take such steps as may be possible to facilitate their evacuation; and a number of persons have succeeded in reaching Gore and Gambeila. As regards the last part of the question, I cannot add anything to the statements which have been previously made on this subject. I should like to take the opportunity of making it clear to the House that there is no foundation whatever for allegations which have been made in certain quarters that His Majesty's Consul at Gore has been engaged in political activities. On the contrary, Captain Erskine's sole concern has been to endeavour to maintain order and ensure the safety of foreigners in his district. His work in this respect has been of the utmost value.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to publish, as promised on 17th June, Sir Sidney Barton's report with regard to events in Abyssinia; and whether he will also publish recent reports received from British consular representatives in Abyssinia with regard to the existing position?

Mr. EDEN: The report referred to in the first part of the hon. and gallant

Member's question was published as a White Paper (Cmd. 5123) on 1st July. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BRITISH DELEGATION.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is to be the personnel of the British delegation at the forthcoming League meeting?

Mr. EDEN: The composition of the United Kingdom delegation at the forthcoming session of the League Assembly will be as follows:
Delegates:

The Lord Privy Seal.
The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs,
and myself.

Substitute delegates:

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Sir William Malkin, Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office.
Miss Marjorie Graves.
Viscount Astor.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House information as to the questions on the agenda for discussion?

COVENANT (REFORM).

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that, at the meeting of the League Assembly in September, His Majesty's Government will not propose or assent to any weakening of the League by the removal from the Covenant of Articles X, XI, or XVI?

Mr. EDEN: As the hon. Member will be aware, the question of the reform of the working of the Covenant is under examination by His Majesty's Government, and I cannot make any statement before this examination has been concluded.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Is not my right hon. Friend satisfied that a large number of people would welcome such a revision?

Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large section of opinion would be passionately adverse to any weakening of the League?

Mr. EDEN: I am aware that there is a wide divergence of view both at home and abroad, and that is why I am giving this answer.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will my right hon. Friend consider modifying the Covenant in order to make the League a whole League, and not part of a League?

Lieut-Colonel MOORE: Would it not be strengthening the League to remove these provocations to war?

Oral Answers to Questions — DARDANELLES.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the result of the Montreaux Conference?

Mr. EDEN: I propose to deal with this subject in the course of this afternoon's Debate. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to wait tell then.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH INDIANS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken in cases which have been brought to his notice where British Indians have been unable to dispose of the land owned and held by them in the United States of America which was in their possession prior to the decision laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1923; and whether British Indians are now allowed to be naturalised and acquire citizenship in the United States?

Mr. EDEN: Representations were made to the United States Government in 1923 and 1924 with a view to giving Indian land holders affected by the Supreme Court's decision time to dispose of their property. No cases have been brought to my notice where British Indians have been unable to do so, but I am making inquiries. With regard to the second part of the question, subject to certain exceptions in the case of persons

who served in the United States Forces during the War, persons of Indian race are not, so far as I am aware, eligible for naturalisation in the United States.

Mr. DAY: Are British Indians now permitted to dispose of their property if a purchaser can be found?

Mr. EDEN: This regulation was made in 1923, and I have heard no complaints.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which, if any, of the five Mediterranean assurances of mutual assistance are still in operation on a basis of reciprocity; and for how long it is proposed to continue them?

Mr. EDEN: I hope to deal with this question in the course of this afternoon's Debate. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to wait till then.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations?

Mr. EDEN: I hope to deal with this subject in the course of this afternoon's Debate. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to wait till then.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the present position in Spain?

Mr. EDEN: I hope to have an opportunity of referring to the situation in Spain during the Debate later in the afternoon. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to wait till then.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, at the outbreak of civil disturbances in Madrid, the Ambassador's staff of His Majesty's Embassy did not return to the capital to safeguard the interests, lives, and property of British subjects resident there?

Mr. EDEN: Owing to the sudden and unforeseen interruption of road and rail communication, it was impossible for the Ambassador and his staff to return to Madrid, but the appropriate steps will be taken as soon as travelling becomes practicable.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Could not some members of the Embassy staff have endeavoured to return to Madrid by air?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. The position is one of considerable difficulty, and again I would say that I shall have something to say on this subject in the Debate.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any request from the Spanish Government for facilities to purchase munitions from British firms, in view of the fact that the French Government have been so approached by the Spanish Government?

Mr. LYONS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations from the Spanish Government, similar to those addressed to the French Government, for permission to negotiate for the supply of armaments from British sources?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to both questions is, No, Sir.

Mr. THURTLE: Is there any substance in the second part of Question 20 which suggests that the Spanish Government approached the French Government for the purchase of munitions from British firms?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot answer for the French and Spanish Governments. I merely said, "No, Sir."

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not absurd to ask our own Foreign Minister whether the Spanish Government has approached the French Government on any matter?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in respect of the supply of arms and munitions to Spain, where a civil war is now in progress?

Mr. EDEN: No applications have been received for licences to export arms to

Spain since the commencement of the rebellion. The ordinary regulations governing the licensing of exports of arms destined to foreign countries are applicable to shipments of arms to Spain.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not the policy of the Government to assist a friendly Government when it is combating these scoundrels?

Mr. LEVY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ask the British Ambassador in Madrid to furnish a report on the traffic in arms from other countries into Spanish territory?

Mr. EDEN: I see no reason to ask for a special report on this matter. His Majesty's Ambassador will in the normal course report on all relevant aspects of the situation in Spain when the position is clearer.

Mr. LYONS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been in communication with the French Government on the subject of British co-operation in the Spanish conflict; and whether he can give an assurance that this country will not be involved in any French intervention?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is, No, Sir. As regards the second part of the question, I have no knowledge of any intervention by the French Government, and no question of intervention by His Majesty's Government arises.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that all that the Spanish Government is doing now is seeking to preserve public order against rebels?

Mr. LYONS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any armaments have been supplied from this country to Spain in recent weeks?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): Particulars of exports from this country are not compiled for periods of less than a calendar month and the figures of exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores consigned to Spain during July will not be available until the middle of August.

Mr. PETHERICK: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with


regard to allowing Spanish or other refugees to enter Gibraltar; how many have already been allowed; and how many have been refused entrance?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The policy has been to admit British subjects and families freely in addition to Spaniards living outside Gibraltar who normally work there. It is not possible to give reliable figures of the numbers who have entered, but it is estimated that there are between 5,000 and 9,000 British subjects and Spaniards. It has been necessary to refuse admission to large numbers of Spaniards as the accommodation available is extremely limited, and for sanitary and military reasons it is not possible to take more than have been admitted at present. A refugee camp has been established on the North front and food kitchens have been opened.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether the men who are employed by the various coal distributing firms in Gibraltar enter Gibraltar each morning and return to their homes in Spain in the evening?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They used to do that, but at present conditions are such that they cannot do so. A great deal of fighting has been taking place in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar.

Mr. KELLY: Do I understand that these men are now being housed in Gibraltar?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I make no doubt that within the category referred to in my answer as Spaniards who have been admitted, are those who normally live outside British territory but work inside British territory.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Is there any zone delimitated as territorial waters, and, if so, in view of the narrow waters which surround Gibraltar, how are these difficulties being overcome?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would rather have that question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRIMSBY TRAWLER, (FINE, ICELAND).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the levy by Icelandic courts of a fine of £1,046 on the skipper of the Grimsby

trawler "Reboundo" for alleged illegal fishing; and whether he will instruct His Majesty's representative in Iceland to assist him in his appeal against this judgment?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have been informed of the case by the owners of the vessel, and it appears that the sum of £1,046 represents the amount of the fine plus the value of the gear confiscated. I have not yet received an official report on the case from the British Consul-General at Reykjavik; but it is his invariable practice to give all proper assistance to the defendants in cases of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH NOTE).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any answer has been received from Germany to the British Note; and whether any reason has been given for this delay?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my noble Friend in the House on 8th July, to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Emmott).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is there any other State that treats British notes in this way?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister of Pensions how many officers and how many men who were drawing war disability pensions died as the result of their War disability in each year ended 31st March, 1930, to 1936; and how many of these left widows or children who were granted pensions under the War Pensions Regulations?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As detailed figures are involved I will, with permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give the information asked for in the first part of the question.

Following, are the figures:

The number of widows' and children's pensions granted during the seven years referred to, consequent upon the death of pensioners, were as follow:


Year ended
Officers' cases.
Cases of Other Ranks.
Total.


31st March, 1930
79
1,629
1,708


31st March, 1931
56
1,308
1,364


31st March, 1932
55
1,131
1,186


31st March, 1933
36
814
850


31st March, 1934
29
746
775


31st March, 1935
37
673
710


31st March, 1936
29
684
713

Mr. CHARLETON: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, having regard to the importance of the expert adjustment by experienced surgeons of the artificial limbs required in cases of amputation, as demonstrated by the Ministry's work in War disabled cases, he can make arrangements for civilian cases to have the benefit of similar treatment?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. The Committee of Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, have specific powers for this purpose under the scheme of the Charity Commissioners governing their funds and a certain number of civilian cases of amputation have for some time, by arrangement with the London County Council and other public bodies, been successfully dealt with at Roehampton, with the expert advice of Ministry surgeons, on the basis of payment for all charges incurred. I feel that it would be deplorable if the knowledge and skill developed in this service were allowed to lapse with the decreasing number of ex-service men necessarily now coming forward. I have accordingly agreed to a suggestion made by the committee of the Hospital that the services of the limb fitting surgeons of the Ministry, both at Roehampton and in the provincial centres where ex-service men are dealt with, should be made available to the committee for the expert adjustment of artificial limbs for further classes of civilian cases submitted to them. Under the agreement to be entered into for the purpose, fees which will entirely cover all expenses incurred by the Ministry will be charged, and the service will

be inaugurated as early as possible. I should add that so far as the Ministry is concerned these arrangements will in no circumstances be allowed to interfere either with the practice of any independent surgeon who may desire himself to supervise the adjustment of an artificial limb in any case in which he has been concerned, or with the supply of artificial limbs by any firm of limb-makers that it may be desired to employ.

Captain Sir IAN FRASER: asked the Minister of Pensions, with reference to the conference he held in April last with representatives of certain voluntary funds, whether he has been able to meet the suggestion then made that an authoritative guide to the numerous voluntary funds and agencies for assisting ex-Service men and their dependants would be of great service both to the funds themselves and to the public?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. I have found a general measure of agreement amongst the voluntary funds consulted that an authoritative guide is called for. They are co-operating in its compilation and arrangement, and I hope to issue it in the Autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

OVERSEA EXHIBITIONS AND BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what assistance has been given by his Department during the previous 12 months for the purpose of assisting British exhibitors at any oversea trade exhibitions; and what preparations are being made for next year's British Industries Fair?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have been asked to reply. During the past 12 months the Department of Overseas Trade has provided on request, as previously, up-to-date information to United Kingdom firms desirous of participating in overseas exhibitions and trade fairs; the service included the publication in the Board of Trade Journal of announcements of forthcoming exhibitions and trade fairs to be held abroad.
The arrangements for the organisation of the British Industries Fair to be held in London and Birmingham from the 15th to the 26th February next are well advanced and a world wide publicity campaign is being undertaken. Applications


for exhibiting space in the Fair (London and Birmingham) have already been received from 1,754 firms for an area of 794,586 square feet, an increase of approximately 12 per cent. over the area applied for during the same period last year.

Mr. DAY: Are His Majesty's Government pledged to any official participation in any oversea exhibition?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question upon the Paper.

GAUMONT-BRITISH PICTURE CORPORATION.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now obtained information as to the acquisition of control of the Gaumont-British Company by American interests; and whether he is satisfied that the formation of a holding company, whose shares will be held as to two-thirds by American interests and one-third by British interests, will ensure that the control will remain in British hands?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Full details of this transaction which, I understand, was carried out in the United States are not yet available. Accordingly, I am not at present in a position to confirm or deny the statement in the Press that British control will be maintained.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Will an endeavour be made to keep this important means of propaganda within the control of the British Parliament?

Mr. DAY: Will the Minister consider asking his right hon. Friend to refer this matter to the committee which is investigating the amendment of the Cinema Films Act, 1927?

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that American interests are taking definite steps to obtain control of the British film industry?

Mr. J. HALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been notified of the amalgamation of important American and British film distributors; and is he satisfied that this control of British films by an American company will not involve breaches of the Cinematograph Films Act?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the recent transactions connected with the Gaumont-British Picture Corporation of which notices have appeared in the Press. Pending the receipt of further information, I cannot express an opinion whether these transactions involve any infringement of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend that this question should be referred to the committee which is investigating the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Until we have further information it is difficult to make any categorical statement as to what should be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BEET SUGAR SUBSIDY.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in working out a system whereby growers of sugar-beet situated at a long distance from existing sugar-beet factories shall benefit equally with other growers under the Government's scheme of assistance?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I have asked the Sugar Commission to consider and report to me whether in their view it is desirable and practicable to effect any change in the provisions regarding transport charges hitherto contained in contracts for the sale and purchase of sugar-beet. I understand that the commission are now in consultation with representatives of the growers on this matter.

MILK MARKETING.

Major MILLS: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many new producers registered with the Milk Marketing Board during the period 1st January, 1936, to 1st June, 1936; how many of these new producers have become licensed for accredited milk production; what was the aggregate number of gallons of milk these new producers sold in each of the five months ended 31st May, 1936; and the percentage of accredited milk contained in those aggregates?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed by the Milk Marketing Board that the number of new producers registered with the Board during the period referred to was 2,229, of whom 124 have become licensed for accredited milk production. The total quantity of milk sold by these 2,229 producers during the period was 8,220,600 gallons, of which 9.76 per cent. was accredited.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE (SUBSCRIBERS).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone subscribers at the latest date for which information is available; and the increase in five years up to that date?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): The number of telephones in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the 31st May, 1936, the latest date for which the information is available, was 2,613,601. The increase during the previous five years was 605,120.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Having regard to the fact that the number of consumers of electrical energy increases each year by more than the telephone increases in five years, will my right hon. and gallant Friend consult the electrical supply companies on the matter?

Major TRYON: The concessions that we have made for cheaper telephones enable us to go ahead at a more rapid rate.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

EMPIRE SERVICE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the Postmaster-General what is the approximate expenditure to be incurred on Empire broadcasting during the current year; whether any plans for the expansion and development of that service have yet been considered; and what is the approximate expenditure on short-wave broadcasting at the present time by Italy, Germany and Japan?

Major TRYON: On the first part of the question I am communicating with the British Broadcasting Corporation and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Ullswater Committee that the Empire broadcasting

service should be developed, and steps are being taken to give effect to this decision. No information is available as to the amounts spent by the countries mentioned on their short-wave broadcasting services.

ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the Postmaster-General what action it is proposed to take to implement the report which has just been published with regard to electrical interference with wireless broadcasting in this country; and when it is proposed to introduce legislation to give additional powers to the Post Office in this respect?

Major TRYON: The report is under consideration, but I cannot yet say what action will be proposed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Minister of Pensions, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what progress has been made with regard to the removal of the dangerous low iron railings bordering certain of the paths in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens; and whether he is aware that further accidents have occurred since his attention was drawn to the dangerous character of these railings?

Mr. HUDSON (for the First Commissioner of Works): My Noble Friend has himself inspected these railings in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens and, while he agrees with the principle of removing railings when this can be done without detriment to the turf, experience has shown that in some places their removal results in entire destruction of the surrounding grass by wear and the forming of unsightly bare tracks. He has decided to remove a further long stretch of low railing near the Round Pond. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Sir W. DAVISON: While I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that statement, I hope that he will take into consideration the many hundreds of yards of railings all through Kensington Gardens which are still there, that these accidents are daily occurring, and that really they serve no useful purpose, as in Green Park and also in Hyde Park where they have been removed the grass verges to the paths are in very good condition?

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Minister of Pensions, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the total annual cost of bulbs and flowers in Regent's Park and Hyde Park, respectively?

Mr. HUDSON: The figures are £750 and £600 respectively so far as purchases are concerned. The bulk of the flowers are, however, propagated in the park nurseries and green-houses for the various parks and gardens and no separate figures of cost are available.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my hon. Friend say why this preference is shown to Regent's Park as compared with Hyde Park; and will he again take into consideration the desirability of a few summer flowers in the railed enclosures in Hyde Park, which are a mere fraction of the large area devoted to bulbs?

Mr. HUDSON: I will bring the matter to the notice of my Noble Friend.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Seeing that all the country is contributing to Hyde Park and Regent's Park, will the hon. Gentleman see that there are a few sent to Royston Welfare Park?

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Pensions, as representing the First Com missioner of Works, whether he will give particulars of what alterations he is contemplating for opening or closing the Royal or public parks under his control; and will he consider increasing the speed limit for motorists in the parks to 30 miles an hour so as to make it uniform with that which exists in built-up areas?

Mr. HUDSON: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, there are no such alterations at present contemplated. With reference to the second part of the question, the First Commissioner considers that the amenity of the Royal Parks, and consideration for the safety of pedestrians in particular, fully justify the retention of the existing speed limit.

Mr. DAY: With regard to the first part of the question, is it the fact that the parks overseas and in America are all kept open?

Mr. DENMAN: Is my hon. Friend aware that the speed limit is constantly disregarded, especially by taxi cabs, and will he see to it that it is more properly enforced?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

VENTILATION.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Minister of Pensions, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether work can be undertaken during the Recess to improve the old-fashioned ventilation system of the debating Chamber?

Mr. HUDSON: As I have indicated in my replies to recent questions, the subject of the ventilation of the Chamber is under active review. I am afraid, however, that matters are not in such a stage that it will be practicable to make any improvements during the Recess.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the Minister aware that I have been putting this question at intervals since I first entered Parliament in 1924; is he also aware that it has been put at intervals since everybody here has been in Parliament and nothing has been done; and when is the Government review to be made in order to prevent us from being half poisoned by sewage gas from the River Thames?

Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question on Thursday, and I will see if it is possible to give her a reply.

SEATING ACCOMMODATION.

Captain McEWEN: asked the Minister of Pensions, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can now state what arrangements are in contemplation with a view to increasing the accommodation in the Galleries in this House?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. As I stated in the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen) on 29th June, Mr. Speaker has agreed to increase the seats at the disposal of the Diplomatic Corps by allotting them the whole of what is now known as the Special Gallery. It was originally proposed to form a new Special Gallery by taking 10 seats from the present Members' Side Gallery. On reconsideration, however, it is now proposed to reconstruct the existing Strangers' Gallery, and, by including an extra row, to obtain additional seating accommodation for between 24 and 28 persons. It is contemplated that half this, namely, 12 seats, will be added to the existing Strangers' Gallery, making


a total of 112 seats to be balloted for daily by Members instead of 100 as at present. The remainder will form the new Special Gallery. In the event of the Diplomatic Gallery seats not being occupied by four p.m. 14 seats will fall for disposal to Members by the Sergeant at Arms, who may thus have some 31 seats for disposal at four o'clock instead of 19 as at present. Representations have for many years been made by the occupants of the Press Gallery as to the inadequacy of the space at their disposal. Mr. Speaker has approved proposals for a reconstruction of the seating in this Gallery which will increase the total by some 12 seats, and will make the other accommodation more convenient. This will involve the sacrifice of about 18 inches on each side of space at present occupied by the Members' Side Gallery. It is hoped to carry out this work during the forthcoming Recess.

Mr. THORNE: Do I understand from that reply that it is going to curtail the seating accommodation of Members of the House?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir, by 18 inches on the front row of the gallery on each side.

Mr. THORNE: I want to know whether you are to curtail the seating accommodation of each individual? There are 400 odd seats in this House, and will it curtail the seating accommodation?

Mr. HUDSON: There will be only 18 inches sacrificed on each side in the gallery, and in view of the very difficult circumstances in which members of the Press work at present, this arrangement will add to their comfort.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the hon. Member aware that the 18 inches may affect my hon. Friend?

Mr. SANDYS: Does the Minister propose to accommodate 12 Pressmen in 18 inches of space?

MEMBERS' SPEECHES.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to appoint a committee to consider whether, and under what conditions, a time limit should be placed on speeches made in the House or in Committee of the Whole House?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 30th March last in reply to questions addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), and to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart).

Miss RATHBONE: Is the Prime Minister aware that of the speeches last Wednesday 30 exceeded 30 minutes and 13 exceeded 45 minutes, thus greatly limiting the time available for other hon. Members?

The PRIME MINISTER: I was, unfortunately, unable to be present during the whole of the Debate, as I should have liked, but rumours of that nature have reached me.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN LEGION (MEETING, WESTMINSTER HALL).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: asked the Minister of Pensions, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any special arrangements affecting Members of this House are being made in connection with the meeting of the Canadian Pilgrims to be addressed by the Prime Minister in Westminster Hall on Wednesday, 29th July?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. The Prime Minister proposes to address the Canadian Legion in Westminster Hall on Wednesday morning at about 10.30. In view of the large numbers expected to assemble, it will unfortunately be necessary to ask hon. Members not to park their cars in New Palace Yard until after 11.30. They are asked to arrange that cars driven by their chauffeurs should leave after setting them down, but arrangements have been made for Members driving their own cars to leave them in the Star Chamber Court. This should be approached via New Palace Yard and the police constables on duty will give the necessary directions. Cars driven by chauffeurs will be directed to an alternative parking place.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (PRIVATE ENTERPRISE).

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Minister of Health whether it is still the


policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage private persons to undertake housing schemes for persons of the working classes, especially schemes for the provision of houses and flats to let; and whether every encouragement will be given by the Government to facilitate the carrying out of such schemes by private enterprise?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. The Government look to private enterprise as the chief source of supply of dwellings to meet the general needs of the working-class population and hope to see an increasing proportion of small houses and flats for letting among the dwellings provided by private enterprise. The Government are certainly ready to encourage the activities of private enterprise in this direction and to give them all practicable assistance.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Member aware that certain local authorities when they see an owner developing his own property for letting in working-class houses or flats, serve him with a compulsory order to purchase the site so that they, rather than a private individual, may get the credit of the improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCARNO TREATY.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Prime Minister whether the meeting of the three Locarno Powers in London is solely to prepare for a later meeting of all five Locarno Powers; whether the object of such a later meeting will be to discuss a treaty to replace the Locarno protocols and whether Germany will be invited to such a meeting on a basis of absolute equality, with the German peace plan as the basis of the discussion and with no reservations calculated or likely to cause her non-acceptance of the invitation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the communiqué which was issued at the conclusion of the Three-Power Meeting on 23rd July.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we are prepared to remove the guarantees of mutual assistance in the Mediterranean in view of Italy finding them an objection to accepting an invitation?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a separate question. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put it on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Mr. AMERY: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a Motion on the Order Paper standing in the names of over 120 supporters of the Government urging the Government to make an explicit reaffirmation of the then Foreign Secretary's statement to the German Chancellor in March, 1935, that the transfer of any British mandated territory is not a discussable question; and, if so, whether he is able to give the desired assurance?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my right hon. Friend would be good enough to await the statement which will be made in the course of the Debate this afternoon.

Mr. AMERY: Before a statement is made, will the right hon. Gentleman endorse the declaration recently made by the Colonial Secretary that we are quitting nowhere?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS (GRANTS).

Mr. W. ROBERTS: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed that after 31st March, 1937, grants in the Special Areas are to be limited to grants for the purpose of assisting industries, and that after that date grants for works of public improvement are to be no longer available?

Sir JAMES BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The arrangements to be made after 31st March, 1937, in regard to the Special Areas are under consideration, and my right hon. Friend is unable to make any statement at the present time.

Mr. ROBERTS: Is it possible to give any indication whether the present condition of things will continue or not?

Sir J. BLINDELL: All that I can say is that my right hon. Friend is unable to make any statement at the present time.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Minister of Labour how many local advisory committees are to be set up in the West Riding of Yorkshire, including the towns and cities in the Riding, by the Unemployment Assistance Board; in what areas are they located; and will he give the names of the chairmen and, if possible, the members of the advisory committees?

Sir J. BLINDELL: Nine local advisory committees are being set up by the Board to serve the county area of the West Riding of Yorkshire and the towns and cities in the Riding. With the hon. Member's permission, my right hon. Friend will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the areas allocated to each of these committees and the names of the chairmen. Substantial progress has been made in the appointment of the members of all these committees, but for none of them has it yet reached a stage at which it would be proper to publish a list.

Mr. LUNN: Is it not a fact that the main qualification to become a chairman of one of those advisory committees is that you must be a well known supporter of the Government?

Sir J. BLINDELL: I have no information on the subject, but if the hon. Member would like to know, I suggest that he put down another question.

Following is the table:

Advisory Committees serving the West Riding of Yorkshire:

Advisory Committee and Chairman:
City of Leeds and district.—H. S. Wainwright, F.C.A.
City of Bradford and district.—W. H. Suddards.
County Boroughs of Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield and districts.—Colonel J. W. Walker, D.S.O., J.P.
City of York and district.—H. E. Harrowell, J.P.
County Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull and parts of the East and West Ridings.—H. H. Sanderson.
City of Sheffield, County Borough of Rotherham and districts.—S. Osborn, J.P., LL.D.
County Borough of Barnsley and district.—Councillor Plummer.

County Borough of Doncaster and district.—Major M. E. Clark, J.P.
County Borough of Wakefield and district.—B. Hickson.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Minister of Labour who advises the Unemployment Assistance Board in their choice of chairmen of advisory committees; and whether he will take steps to prevent the board appointing to these posts large employers of labour and persons closely and publicly associated with any political party?

Sir J. BLINDELL: The appointment of the chairmen and members of the advisory committees is entrusted to the Unemployment Assistance Board by Section 35 (3) of the Unemployment Act, 1934, and is in no way under my right hon. Friend's control. My right hon. Friend is informed that before making the appointments of chairmen the board take advantage of a variety of local sources of responsible advice. The persons selected by the board are for the most part not actively associated with any political party, but they include both employers of labour and persons associated with organisations of workpeople selected entirely on the basis of their personal qualifications and irrespective of political affiliations.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: If the name of the chairman of such a committee was given to the right hon. Gentleman and that gentleman was a large employer of labour and was associated very closely with a political party, would steps be taken to replace him?

Sir J. BLINDELL: If my hon. and gallant Friend has any complaint to make, he had better address it in writing to the Minister.

Mr. LUNN: May I ask, if the hon. Member can speak on the point, whether there is one chairman of any committee suggested who is a member of a trade union or of one of the organised bodies mentioned?

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the appointment of these chairmen is not in the hands of the Minister of Labour but in the hands of the chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board? I have just come up in the train with one


man who said that he had written to ask him if he would take a job, and he is a blue-blooded Tory.

Sir J. BLINDELL: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down that question.

ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS.

Mr. GARRO JONES: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an approximate estimate of the total cost of abolishing, respectively, the family means test and the means test for unemployment benefit, based on 1935; and what offset to this cost would arise out of saving the cost of the inquiries into means?

Sir J. BLINDELL: With regard to the means test for unemployment assistance, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) on 16th July of which I am sending him a copy. There is no means test for unemployment benefit.

Mr. GARRO JONES: May I draw attention to the fact that this question was printed other than the way I put it down? There is a mistake.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss WILKINSON:

54. To ask the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a statement by the manager of the Jarrow Employment Exchange that unemployed men who join the proposed march of Jarrow men to London will lose their benefits; whether this statement has been made on his authority; and, if so, seeing that men marching through towns outside Jarrow may be more likely to be offered work than those who remain in the town in its present condition, under what regulation is this threat made?

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of procedure: Before the hon. Member answers, may I say that this question is an important one and that an answer read by any one other than the Minister of Labour does not provide the Member concerned with the opportunity of asking vital supplementary questions? In regard to Question 59 to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that Minister was

courteous enough to say that he would not be present, and he asked me to postpone the question. If I had known that the Minister of Labour was not to be present to-day, I should have asked that Question 54 be postponed. Is it possible to postpone it now?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Lady can postpone it if she wishes.

Miss WILKINSON: I desire to postpone it.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS:

82. To ask the Minister of Transport whether he will furnish an estimate of the number of consumers of electricity at the most recent date for which an estimate can be made; and whether he will state the increase in five years up to that date?

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order, Sir. You have not called my Question, No. 82.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already put three questions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Further to that point of Order. This question was put down for last Thursday and those questions were not automatically carried forward to the Order Paper of Friday. In the circumstances, I should be glad if you would advise Members what they can do with regard to questions put down last Thursday.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the questions had been answered already.

Mr. WILLIAMS: No answers were given to the questions down for Thursday last. They were all automatically wiped off the Order Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: They can be put down again.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL (EXPORTS).

Mr. POTTS: asked the Secretary for Mines the tonnage of export trade in coal for each respective year since the coming into operation of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, specifying the quantity for export purposes and foreign bunkers?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The information is as follows:


Quantity of coal shipped abroad as Cargo and Foreign Bunkers, from the United Kingdom during the years 1931 to 1936.


Year.
Cargo Shipments.
Foreign Bunkers.



Tons.
Tons.


1931
42,749,740
14,609,545


1932
38,898,801
14,209,237


1933
39,067,926
13,457,081


1934
39,659,880
13,487,222


1935
38,714,104
12,526,170


1936 (January to June).
16,274,921
5,727,966

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed eventually to reopen Pembroke Dockyard for constructional purposes by reason of its naturally secure position?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): No, Sir.

EMERGENCY DESTROYERS.

Mr. GARRO JONES: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what notice to sail is deemed to be sufficient for a stand-by or emergency destroyer; whether such a vessel would normally have steam for immediate departure; and whether there was any misunderstanding on 31st December last at Alexandria as to which warship was standing by?

Lord STANLEY: The notice for steam of an emergency destroyer or destroyers with a fleet is up to 2½ hours. This is shortened as necessary when conditions require it, the decision resting with the senior officer and depending on local circumstances at the time. The answer to the second part of the question is therefore in the negative. As regards the third part no misunderstanding arose as to which ship was standing by.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (MILK MARKETING).

Captain W. T. SHAW: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether

he will take steps to allay the dissatisfaction among milk producers in the Dundee district because of the delay on the part of the Milk Board in collecting the producers' supplies; and whether he is aware that there have been instances where, owing to the delay, the milk has gone bad and the board have returned it to the producers and have refused to pay for it, although the deterioration in the milk was due to the negligence on the part of the board in collecting?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut. - Colonel Colville): I have been in communication with the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, who state that, while they have had to reject a small quantity of milk in the Dundee district on account of its poor quality, this was not necessarily due to defects in the haulage arrangements. I may add that the board do not themselves undertake haulage in that district. It is in the hands of licensed haulage contractors, and each registered producer may select his contractor. The board are, however, reconsidering the transport arrangements in the Dundee district, and I understand that they are in communication with the hon. and gallant Member on the subject.

Captain SHAW: Are we to understand that the board refuses to accept responsibility for its own enactments?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I understand that the question is being investigated by the board, but if the hon. Member has any information to give I shall be happy to receive it.

Captain McEWEN: Is the Milk Board still in existence?

Duchess of ATHOLL: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Milk Marketing Board or the Scottish agricultural colleges have worked out the average cost per gallon of seasonal and all-the-year-round milk production, respectively, in both the eastern and western portions of the area of the scheme; and, if so, will he state the approximate dates of the ascertainments and the figures ascertained?

Lieut.Colonel COLVILLE: A joint inquiry into the costs of milk production is being carried out by the three agricultural colleges and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. The inquiry is


not yet completed, and I therefore regret that I am unable to give my Noble Friend the information she seeks.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does my hon. and gallant Friend not agree that it is a serious matter that the different costs of production, seasonal and all the year round, were not ascertained before it was decided that under the milk scheme the price should be the same in both areas?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNTRIED PRISONERS (POLICE TREATMENT).

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the treatment by the police of untried prisoners is both fair and considerate; and what representations he has received in recent time to the contrary effect?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am sure that all police forces recognise the need for the utmost fairness and consideration in the treatment of untried prisoners. I have received no recent representations on the subject.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: Is the Home Secretary aware of the remarks of Mr. Justice Charles recently at Manchester Assizes, and may we look forward to some improvement in the method of dealing with accused and untried prisoners?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think the learned judge is the one to whom the hon. Member refers. I saw a newspaper report. The case is under appeal, and I cannot say more about it except to point out that the police were never called in that case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

OMNIBUSES, OXFORD ROAD, PUTNEY.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Home, Secretary the statutory authority under which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has given authority to the London Passenger Transport Board to allow omnibuses to remain at rest in Oxford Road, Putney, opposite a taximeter-cab rank in such a way as to create congestion?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I have been asked to reply. Section 61 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Was authority given by the Home Secretary or by the Minister of Transport?

Captain HUDSON: Under the particular Section it is a matter for the Traffic Commissioner, who is required to consult the Commissioner of Police.

SPEED LIMIT (INVISIBLE-RAY).

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to recommend the adoption in Lancashire of the invisible-ray methods of testing speeds of motorists, in view of the fact that this system is probably fairer than the ordinary methods of police trapping?

Sir J. SIMON: I have been asked to reply. I understand that this method is being tried by the Chief Constable of Cheshire, but at present it is still in an experimental stage. Further experience of its working would be necessary before it could be recommended for general adoption, but in any event it could only supplement and could not replace other methods of enforcing the speed limit.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Home Secretary (1), whether there is any objection to the Prison Officers' Representative Board and the Broadmoor Asylum Staff Board being represented on the National Whitley Council; and, if so, what is the objection;
(2) whether there are any regulations against prison officers, the Broadmoor Asylum staff, or the respective representative boards placing any cases in dispute with the Departments, such as questions of pay, before the Civil Service Industrial Court; and, if so, what are the regulations?

Sir J. SIMON: Arbitration by the Industrial Court under the scheme agreed for the Civil Service is open only to recognised associations of civil servants within the scope of the National Whitley Council. The staffs in question are not within the scope of the National Whitley


Council and the alternative system of representative boards was specially designed to afford them full opportunities of making representations on matters affecting their interests. The system, I believe, has worked satisfactorily and I have no information indicating that a change would be desirable.

Mr. SMITH: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with information, will he consider it?

Sir J. SIMON: Certainly, but at present no representations have been received from the staff in favour of any alteration.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIFORMS (POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Manchester Town Council in refusing to allow Fascists last week to march through the town in uniform, were able to decide the meaning of uniform; and whether he will take steps to prevent the use of uniforms, as defined by that decision, anywhere in the country?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that on the occasion in question no attempt was made to define what constituted a uniform. As regards the second part of the question, I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply given to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on 7th May last.

Mr. THORNE: If the Chief Commissioner of Police for Manchester has this power, is it not true to say that the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan area has the same power? Why does he not exercise his authority?

Sir J. SIMON: I think the facts in the Manchester case are that these people applied to the local police authorities who laid down, with or without authority, certain conditions which the meeting was prepared to accept. But I will look into the matter.

Mr. THORNE: Did not the Commissioner of Police for Manchester decide that he would not allow a procession with blackshirts in the streets?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that is what happened really, but I will look into the matter.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the fact that these men took off their uniforms while marching through the streets and put them on again by leave in the hall? Therefore there must be some discretion with the police in the matter of uniforms?

Mr. PETHERICK: Would not the prohibition of the wearing of such uniforms give a very much wanted advertisement to these people?

Oral Answers to Questions — STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Home Secretary when he proposes to fill the vacancies among the stipendiary magistrates?

Sir J. SIMON: One vacancy has already been filled, and I hope to be in a position shortly to make a recommendation in respect of the other.

Oral Answers to Questions — FETE, WOODFORD.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a demonstration fête, at which he was the principal speaker, held at the White House, Woodford, in the Parliamentary borough of Walthamstow, on Saturday, 18th July, was raided by police, who found machine games being played for money prizes; whether this illegal money gambling was stopped by the police; and whether he proposes to take any action against the promoters of the demonstration fête?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that two police inspectors visited the fête in the ordinary course of their duties and found certain games being played for money. The organiser of the fête and the showmen were informed that if these games were continued the police would be obliged to take action and the games were immediately closed down. In these circumstances the Commissioner does not propose to take any further action.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the police


had gone these games were again started, and that the prizes were cigarettes and sweets? May I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman himself took any part in the games?

Sir J. SIMON: I can assure the hon. Member that my part was regarded by the meeting as much less amusing.

Mr. THURTLE: What body organised this fete, and was the approval of the Free Church Council given for the use of these machines?

Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not obvious that the whole lot of these restrictions that are imposed at the present time should be withdrawn?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

SALARY SCALES (MEDICAL OFFICERS).

Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLE: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the general practice, in grades of the Civil Service for which a registered medical qualification is essential and which are open to men and women, for women to be given the same salary scales as men; whether that practice is based on the treatment accorded to medical women by good employers outside the Civil Service; and whether any modification of that practice is contemplated?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): It is the general practice to give the same salary scales to men and women in appointments for medical officers in the Civil Service which are open to both sexes. No change is at present contemplated in this practice which originated over 20 years ago and which is in accordance with the practice applied to posts for medical officers outside the Civil Service.

EX-SERVICE MEN (PENSIONS).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to reconsider the position of the age-barred ex-service men in the Civil Service who, on retirement at the age of 65, will leave without pension after many years' service in excess of the minimum statutory period of 10 years which must be rendered by the age of 60 to secure pension; and will the matter be

further investigated as quickly as possible, so that in cases of pending retirement at the age of 65 in the near future, the men concerned may have the benefit of any revised conditions which it may be possible to prescribe for them?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 28th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

Sir F. SANDERSON: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this is a very long-standing grievance, and cannot he give some hope that it will at some future time receive consideration?

Mr. MORRISON: I am aware that it is a somewhat complicated matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the answer to which I have referred, and of which I will send him a copy, and if he has any further question to put after reading it, I hope he will put a question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS (AWARDS).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Transport the amount of compensation that has been paid out under the Electricity (Supply) Acts to workmen, clerks and salaried officers, for loss of employment or reduction in wages, from the commencement of the Acts to the nearest available date?

Captain HUDSON: The awards made under the above-mentioned Acts since the passing of the 1919 Act up to 31st March, 1936, amount in total to approximately £125,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD DRILLS (SILENCERS).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the House any information relative to the test of a number of road drills that have been fitted with silencers; whether this experiment has met with success for the reduction of street noises; and what steps are being taken for the fitting of silencers to all road drills used in public thorough fares?

Captain HUDSON: The Westminster City Council arranged a test of a number of road drills on 21st July, 1936, which was witnessed by officers of my Department. Measurements of noise were made


by the National Physical Laboratory. I understand the Westminster City Council will publish a report upon the results of the test, and until that report is available I am unable to make any further statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take in the event of the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to obtain the Third Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill. If possible, we would like to obtain the Committee stage of the Public Health Bill (Lords) to-night. The Government consider it very desirable to pass this Bill into law before the Recess. While the Bill amends the law in some respects, it is largely a Consolidation measure. It was prepared by a departmental committee

appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), when he was Minister of Health, and has been considered by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I hope that the result of so much work will not be lost. The other two Measures which we would like to obtain to-night are the Housing Bill and the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill (Lords), both of which are Consolidation measures.

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, a Supplementary Estimate for a New Service may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 84.

Division No. 310.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Guy, J. C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Assheton, R.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Crooke, J. S.
Harbord, A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cross, R. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Balniel, Lord
Crossley, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Dawson, Sir P.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Beit, Sir A. L.
De la Bère, R.
Holmes, J. S.


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Blair, Sir R.
Doland, G. F.
Hopkinson, A.


Blindell, Sir J.
Donner, P. W.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Boulton, W. W.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hulbert, N. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Brass, Sir W.
Duggan, H. J.
Jackson, Sir H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Joel, D. J. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Keeling, E. H.


Bull, B. B.
Ellis, Sir G.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliston, G. S.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Butler, R. A.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kimball, L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Entwistle, C. F.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Cary, R. A.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Fleming, E. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Furness, S. N.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Liddall, W. S.


Channon, H.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Lindsay, K. M.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Christie, J. A.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Loftus, P. C.


Clarke, F. E.
Granville, E. L.
Lyons, A. M.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)




MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Remer, J. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


McKie, J. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Maitland, A.
Salmon, Sir I.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Salt, E. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Tate, Mavis C.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sandys, E. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Savery, Servington
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Scott, Lord William
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Selley, H. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Morgan, R. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Munro, P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wells, S. R.


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smithers, Sir W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Palmer, G. E. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Wise, A. R.


Patrick, C. M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Petherick, M.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.



Pilkington, R.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Plugge, L. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Banfield, J. W.
Holland, A.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A.


Batey, J.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Benson, G.
John, W.
Short, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Foot, D. M.
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Marklew, E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

George Frederick Doland, Esquire, for Borough of Wandsworth (Balham and Tooting Division).

Lieut.-Colonel Ralph Stephenson Clarke for County of East Sussex (East Grinstead Division).

BILL PRESENTED.

MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to make further provision with respect to maternity services in Scotland and to amend the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins;

supported by the Lord Advocate and Lieut.-Colonel Colville; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,
Midwives Bill, without Amendment.
Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill,
Coventry Corporation Bill,
Thornton Cleveleys Improvement Bill, with Amendments.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS VI.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £466,702, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, and certain grants in aid."—[NOTE: £190,000 has been voted on account.]

FISHERY BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £74,565, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Expenses of Marine Superintendence, and a Grant in Aid of Piers or Quays."—[NOTE: £38,500 has been voted on account.]

CLASS I.

SCOTTISH OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £63,551, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Scotland in London and Edinburgh; Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899; a Subsidy for Transport Services to the Western Highlands and Islands; a Grant in lieu of Land Tax; and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation, and of Remand Homes."—[NOTE: £35,000 has been voted on account.]

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £117,736, be granted to His Majesty, to complete

the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

4.3 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): A fortnight again the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) approached us through the usual channels and suggested that the moment might be appropriate for a discussion of the international situation. At that time and in view of the situation as it then was I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be good enough not to press for that Debate until after the meeting of the Locarno Powers, or certain of the Powers, which we then hoped might be held. I would like, on behalf of the Government, to express our gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for falling in with that suggestion, which has certainly contributed to assist us in the task with which we were confronted. At the same time it is clearly appropriate that now, after the meeting to which I have referred and a few days before the Adjournment of Parliament for the Summer Recess, some survey should be made of the international situation and as much information as possible given to the Committee by Government spokesmen.
I must confess that in the course of what I shall have to say this afternoon I shall be compelled to deal with a large number of subjects. That is unfortunately inevitable because the troubles of the world, as we have too much reason to know, are not confined to one or two countries alone. With that preliminary apology I would like to start by dealing with what I am sure the Committee will agree is probably the most important aspect of the international situation which now confronts us. I have in mind, in saying that, the projected meeting of the five Locarno Powers. The Committee will remember that ever since the German reoccupation of the Rhineland last March it has been the consistent effort of the Government to seek to set on foot negotiations in order to restore the situation. We have consistently sought to rebuild, for it seemed to us, admittedly difficult as the situation then was, that it was our plain duty to


attempt to create out of the era of difficulty an era of opportunity.
It was in that spirit that we worked throughout the period of the London Conference in March, and in that spirit we agreed to the arrangements of 19th March. It was in that some spirit that we addressed certain questions to the German Government. Those questions were neither acrimonious nor inquisitive. They represented an honest endeavour to facilitate progress. Had they received an early and constructive reply we should have saved much time. It was in that same spirit that we contemplated at Geneva, during the Assembly of last month, the possibility of a further meeting of the Locarno Powers who had agreed to the London arrangements of 19th March. But it was clear to us that if a meeting of a number of, not of all, the signatories to the Locarno Treaty was to have the constructive outcome which we sought, and which we were glad to note in our preliminary conversations at Geneva the French and Belgian Government also sought, then the agenda for the meeting for the three, compared with the agenda for the five, would have to be limited. This was necessary so that its purpose might nowhere be misunderstood, and so that it might clearly serve as a first step towards the subsequent meeting of all the Locarno signatories.
I think the outcome of the brief meeting in London will show to the Committee how completely the constructive objective which we had in view was realised. Nor, I am sure, will our guests of last week misunderstand British hospitality if I say that that meeting was all the better for being brief. That this result should have been possible was mainly due to the far-seeing statesmanship and the generous collaboration shown by the French and Belgian Ministers, and I am glad in this Committee to have the opportunity of paying that tribute. The communiqué which we issued at the end of our deliberations shows that we now look definitely to the future and do not confine ourselves to the past. I must emphasise to the Committee that this view was shared by all at this meeting, and I am convinced that the desire to agree upon a new Locarno, the desire to reach a European settlement, is as keenly felt by the French and Belgian Ministers as it is by ourselves.
Having reached this agreement we felt it important to lose no time in giving knowledge of it to the other two Powers most directly concerned who were not there, and on the very evening of our meeting, before even the text of our communiqué had been made public, the representatives of the three Powers, France, Belgium and ourselves, in Berlin and in Rome, were instructed to communicate these conclusions to the German and Italian Governments, and in doing so to express the hope that those Governments would participate in the Five-Power Conference of which the date and place would then be fixed by common agreement between all five of them. On the day following the issue of the communiqué I asked both the German and the Italian Chargés d'Affaires to come and see me, when I explained to them the scope and the purpose of the communiqué and expressed to them the hope that their respective Governments would be able to return a favourable answer to the invitation conveyed therein. I would add that previous to the actual meeting in London we had been at pains to keep the German and Italian representatives informed of what was in contemplation.
There, for the moment, the matter rests. The Government hope, and I am sure every Member of the Committee hopes, that we may receive a favourable answer from these two Governments. As to the future I must, however, add one word of warning. A preliminary stage, an important one, has been completed, but still it is only a preliminary stage. The preface is, I hope, well conceived; the chapters still remain to be written. If our invitations are accepted then there should be an agreement in general terms on our objectives. But the methods of realising them will still require much study and consultation. Much work through the diplomatic channel will be called for before the meeting of the Five Powers can take place. Many obstacles yet remain to be surmounted. But I think that the gain of the last two days really consists in this: We have now reached a stage when, if a real spirit of collaboration exists among all concerned, we should be able to surmount the obstacles that confront us.
That is all I wish to say on that subject for the moment. I would like to turn


to give the Committee some information about another meeting of the Powers, a meeting which took place at Montreux a short while ago. It is unnecessary for me to give the Committee any detailed account of the provisions of the new Convention regarding the regime of the Straits, because I understand that that document has now been laid before the House. The results of the Conference can, in the view of the Government, be regarded as extremely satisfactory. The experience of this Conference at Montreux embodies many lessons, but I think the Committee will agree that the most important of those lessons is this: From the point of view of general European politics the Conference has shown that treaty revision by negotiation and agreement, in accordance with the normal procedure and the normal principles of international relations and practice, can lead to a settlement more favourable to all concerned than the method of repudiation or the method of the modification of treaty engagements by unilateral action.
The Montreux Conference has, in fact, furnished a valuable example to Europe of the progress which can be made by peaceful and legal methods of treaty revision, and there can be no doubt that the results achieved, from every point of view, and not least, let the Committee mark, from the point of view of Turkey herself, have been infinitely more satisfactory than would have been the case had Turkey attempted to take the law into her own hands. But from the particular point of view also the agreement reached at Montreux is one with which we have no cause to be dissatisfied. Turkey has re-established her claim to be able to fortify the Straits, but at the same time the general principles of freedom of passage through the Straits in time of peace and of the free and international character of the Black Sea have been reasserted and maintained. His Majesty's Government were anxious to obtain the maximum amount of freedom of passage through the Straits, both for merchant ships and for warships, and to preserve, as far as was possible and as has almost invariably been our objective, the character of the Straits as an international waterway. While we recognised that, for geographical reasons, there must be a greater measure of freedom of passage for some countries than for

others, we attached great importance to maintaining the principle that there should be no undue discrimination between the treatment accorded to Black Sea and non-Black Sea Powers, and on this point we were able to obtain acceptable conditions.
I must refer to one question which led to considerable difficulty during the Conference, and that was the conditions which should govern the passage of warships through the Straits in time of war if Turkey were neutral. At first, proposals were put forward which would have had the effect of leaving complete freedom of passage to Black Sea belligerents while closing the Straits to any non-Black Sea belligerent fleet coming from outside into the Black Sea. His Majesty's Government saw strong objection to any such discrimination, and in the solution eventually adopted it will be noted that no difference of treatment is laid down as between Black Sea and non-Black Sea belligerent Powers. A point of even more importance was the attempt which was made at one time, to lay on Turkey an obligation, when she herself was neutral, to discriminate between two belligerents in virtue of an agreement or pact to which she, Turkey, was not herself a party. It was eventually found possible to obtain the abandonment of this proposal, the objections to which will be quite obvious to the Committee without my elaborating them, and it will be seen that Turkey is only entitled to discriminate between two belligerents in cases arising out of the application of the Covenant, or treaties of mutual assistance concluded within the framework of the Covenant and registered at Geneva, to which Turkey is herself a party. The exception connected with rights and obligations under the Covenant, I must make clear because there have been some questions asked by hon. Members opposite on it, was one which we ourselves were anxious to see embodied and was, in point of fact, in our original draft.
Meanwhile, the Clauses of the new Convention which deal with the passage of merchant ships are in several ways, notably as regards the amount and methods of collection of dues and charges, more satisfactory than those of the old Convention. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that a satisfactory agreement has also been reached on another complicated matter, the passage by air


between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean and between Europe and Asia, and that, notwithstanding the fact that Turkey is not yet a party to the International Air Convention.
I think the Committee will agree that that very brief summary is a record of a successful Conference, but before I leave the subject there is one other matter to which I want to refer. It is not directly concerned with the re-militarisation of the Straits, but it is of deep and intimate concern to the people of this country, and I must briefly refer to it—the future of our war graves on the Gallipoli Peninsula. In this connection I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that the Turkish Government have volunteered the most complete and satisfactory assurances. The text of those assurances is being made public in the White Paper, but I feel that the Committee would wish me to take this opportunity to thank the Turkish Government, not only for the terms of their assurances, but for the spirit in which they were given. The effect of the Conference has undoubtedly been to bring about a closer and more cordial understanding between His Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government, and that is a tendency which we welcome all the more in view of the very friendly relations which now exist between our countries.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Turkish Delegation for the tact and understanding with which they have handled this matter, and I think the Committee will agree that we must all be grateful to the First Commissioner of Works and to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty for the skill with which they have steered these very difficult and delicate questions to a successful conclusion. One other tribute I would like to pay on the subject, and that is to the eminent services of Mr. Bruce, the High Commissioner for Australia, who, by his presidency of this Conference, has added one more obligation to the many which the comity of nations already owe to him. That is all for the moment that I wish to say about Montreux.
I will turn to another aspect of Mediterranean affairs, in which there are also

signs of a definite improvement in international relations. I would remind the Committee that on the occasion of our foreign affairs Debate on 18th June I referred to certain assurances which His Majesty's Government had given to certain Mediterranean Powers in connection with the imposition of sanctions, and I added this:
It is the view of the Government that this assurance given by this country should not end with the raising of sanctions, but should continue to cover the period of uncertainty which must necessarily follow any termination of action under Article 16."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1936; col. 1206, Vol. 313.]
Subsequently, on the withdrawal of sanctions, as I had undertaken to the House, I made a similar statement to the Assembly of the League. Happily, there are specific grounds for affirming that the position of uncertainty to which I then referred has now been brought to an end, and I will tell the Committee why that is. About the middle of this month the Italian Government made to the Governments of Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey a spontaneous declaration. The substance of these messages has since been communicated to me in London by the Italian Chargé d'Affaires. From this communication it emerges clearly that the Italian Government have themselves approached the Turkish, Yugoslav, and Greek Governments and have given to each of those three Governments the most clear assurances that Italy has never contemplated, nor is contemplating, any aggressive action against any of them in retaliation for their past sanctionist policy. In expressing these views, the Italian representatives in each of these three capitals have also emphasised that Italy considers the sanctions chapter as being definitely and completely over, and that she looks confidently forward towards a new period of mutual co-operation among all nations. The Italian Government have also recalled that between Italy and Greece and between Italy and Turkey treaties of friendship are in existence with which Italy has never failed to comply and which the Italian Government intend fully to respect, and with Yugoslavia Italy intends no less to develop the same good relations which she enjoys with Turkey and Greece.
I hope the Committee will agree that the information which I have just given, and which, I must remind the Committee,


was specifically given to me by the Italian Chargé d'Affaires in a memorandum, fully justifies the conclusion that the circumstances which, in the view of His Majesty's Government, had made it desirable to give these assurances no longer exist. I am, therefore, glad to be able to recognise and to declare that in the view of His Majesty's Government there is now no further need for the continuance of these assurances.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Have they made assurances to this country?

Mr. EDEN: They were unilateral assurances.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will there be a vote of thanks to Mussolini?

Mr. EDEN: If hon. Gentlemen had had to stand in my place, they would have been grateful for anything of this nature. I now turn to another country in the Mediterranean with whom we have long had, and still have, very friendly relations and in regard to which also I am glad to be able to report some progress to the Committee. As hon. Members will have seen from the Press, the first stage in the Treaty discussions with Egypt has been concluded, and Articles dealing with military matters were initialled by the heads of the British and Egyptian delegations on 24th July. I should like to express the Government's satisfaction with this development, and I hope that the progress achieved and the friendly manner in which the talks on these Articles have proceeded will pave the way for an early and sound settlement of the important points of a different nature which still remain to be discussed. I would like to emphasise that, as it had been agreed between the two Governments in the negotiations from the very beginning that the Treaty should be regarded as an interdependent whole, any agreement which is reached upon any Article or set of Articles is dependent upon agreement being reached on all the matters to be dealt with in the Treaty. I would, therefore, ask the Committee if I might not to press me for details in respect of what has just been provisionally agreed, and I would suggest that unofficial statements purporting to set out the points of the Articles just initialled should be accepted with the greatest caution. I must also

give the Committee this specific assurance, that should an agreement be reached, it will not be ratified until there has been an opportunity for it to be fully debated in this House.
I now turn, in a geographical sense, to Spain. I would wish first to express the deep regret with which His Majesty's Government and all of us, whatever our political views, have received the news of the unhappy situation which has developed in Spain. There are certain remarkable features of this revolt. One of them is the suddenness with which it has spread to all parts of the country, and the other is the rapidity with which communications within Spain and from Spain to other countries were cut. Sharp and, I am afraid, very bitter fighting is still going on, and it is not possible to forecast what its outcome may be. As soon as the first news reached London, arrangements were immediately made to send warships to the assistance of British communities in places where danger to such communities appeared to be imminent. In the course of last week His Majesty's ships visited every large port in Spain as well as a large number of smaller coast towns. A considerable number of British subjects preferred to remain in Spain to protect their business interests, but large numbers have been evacuated, including several hundreds from Barcelona and San Sebastian, over 100 each from Huelva, Palma and Malaga and 50 from Seville. I think that the Committee would wish to express their appreciation of the work done by His Majesty's ships in this connection—and that work is being done not only for British subjects, but for others also.
While these measures were being taken to assist British subjects who were within reach of the coast, a more serious problem, which was raised in several questions to-day, was that of communication with the interior of the country, and in particular with Madrid where there is a large British colony. His Majesty's Ambassador and his staff were at the time of the outbreak in San Sebastian, together with most of the other foreign missions, and many Spanish Ministers, because as the Committee is probably aware that they move to San Sebastian at this time of the year. For the greater part of last week our telegraphic communications both with San Sebastian and Madrid were cut, but


it is at present possible to communicate with both these places. It has not been possible to evacuate the large number of British subjects from Madrid owing to the interruption of communications by rail and road, but the British Vice-Consul has made arrangements for the accommodation of British subjects in our Embassy and, according to my latest information, there are well over 100 persons in that building at present. In view of the situation which I have just described, and of the difficulties of communicating with our own representative I thought it my duty on Saturday to telegraph direct to the Spanish Foreign Minister—and I did so—in the matter of the protection of British subjects in Madrid itself.
I should like to add only this about the situation. According to the latest news we have had, the foreign missions in Madrid jointly approached the Spanish Government on Saturday through the Chilean representative, who is the doyen of the Diplomatic Corps. I am happy to say that the Spanish Government have accepted all the points put to them within the limits of their capacity. The local situation in Madrid at the time this message was sent was quiet, and the Diplomatic Corps were in communication with the Spanish authorities as regards arrangements being made for a convoy to take foreigners from Madrid to Valencia. Whether it has been possible to carry that suggestion through I have no information.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary whether the reports that have appeared in some of the French papers—I think they were repeated in some of ours yesterday, and certainly to-day—that His Majesty's Government have addressed an appeal to the French Government that they should not allow arms to be sold to the Spanish Government are accurate; in view of the fact that the Spanish Government was only elected two or three months ago at an election which was declared not by a Government of the Left, but by a Government of the Right?

Mr. EDEN: I can answer the right hon. Gentleman quite definitely; we have addressed no such communication to the French Government.

Mr. GALLACHER: Have His Majesty's Government any attitude whatever towards the situation in Spain?

Mr. EDEN: Of course we have an attitude. We are pursuing the normal attitude which a Government would pursue in a situation such as this and I am not prepared to depart from that normal attitude.

Miss WILKINSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representation from the Spanish Embassy with regard to the import of arms supplied by Italy through Portugal?

Mr. EDEN: No, not as far as I am aware. May I turn to another part of Europe where the situation is not altogether free from anxiety. I refer to Danzig. The Free City of Danzig has a unique status in the modern world. That status, I must make plain, is not due to the action of the present Government of this country or to that of any of its immediate predecessors; it derives from a more distant past, from the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. I am not criticising them. Under the provisions of that treaty the Free City of Danzig was placed under the protection of the League of Nations, and its constitution was guaranteed by the League of Nations. The Danzig constitution which the League has thus an obligation to guarantee contains provisions assuring to the citizens of that city certain political liberties which are, shall we say, more extensive than those obtaining in many countries of Europe at the present time. There have been frequent complaints during recent years from the opposition parties in Danzig that their constitutional rights have not been respected by the Danzig Government.
At the beginning of July, at the meeting of the League Council, a report was received from the League High Commissioner in Danzig on recent events in that city, and it was considered by the Council. The representative of Poland undertook to take certain action and to report to the Council at its next meeting on the results of the action. The Committee will agree that that was a perfectly proper arrangement in view of Poland's special connection with this matter. It was further decided to appoint two additional members, the representatives of France and Portugal, to assist the rapporteur, who is the representative of the United Kingdom, in dealing with the Danzig question. The position now is, therefore,


that a report from the Polish Government is expected to come before the next meeting of the Council. In the meanwhile, the Danzig Government have issued certain new decrees, the general substance of which has appeared in the Press. The course will be in the first instance for the League High Commissioner at Danzig, if he thinks fit, to submit a report to the League with regard to these decrees, and pending the receipt of such a report I am unable to offer any detailed observations on the subject.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Has there been any protest from Poland?

Mr. EDEN: I imagine that the Polish Government will, like other members of the League, wait for the report of the High Commissioner. Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity to explain a certain piece of League machinery so that it will be quite clear why the British representative at Geneva has to take such a prominent part in the discussions on Danzig questions. The reason is simple. In order to facilitate our work before the Council, it is customary to charge one member of the Council with reporting on each of the questions before them. For many years, under successive Foreign Secretaries, the duty of handling Danzig questions has been assigned to and accepted by the representative of this country. It is not, I beg the Committee to believe, that either I or any one of my predecessors has sought or particularly desired to be associated with this subject. On the contrary, the functions of rapporteur have often in the past caused a great deal of work to the Foreign Secretary of this country, who has many other preoccupations, but we have done this in order to fulfil our duty as a member of the Council. I think that I am entitled to add, in view of expressions of opinion in certain quarters, that in the discharge of this arduous and often ungrateful task I and my predecessors have had this sole objective constantly before us, namely, to try and assist, so far as lay in our power, in the smooth working of the machinery which has been set up and in a friendly solution of the problems which come before us from time to time.
I do not want to leave this subject without saying a word about the position of the League High Commissioner In

Danzig. The Council has frequently made it clear that, in its view, Mr. Lester has carried out the duties of a most difficult post in an admirable manner. He has earned, and he deserves, the complete confidence of the Council of the League. Whatever may be the political opinions about the existence or the functions of his post, I feel sure that all sections of opinion in this Committee will agree that he is entitled to courteous and considerate treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear those cheers because I hope they make it clear that all sections of opinion in this country sympathise with the difficulties of an Irishman carrying out an anxious task.
I turn to the question of the reform of the League of Nations. During the recent meeting of the Council and of the Assembly last month, frequent references were made, both in speeches and in private conversations, to the need for a review of the working of the Covenant in the light of the experience gained in the last few months in applying Article 16. The Assembly itself came to certain conclusions, which were published, that members of the League should be invited to send in their views, if possible before 1st September, and that the subject should be discussed at our next normal meeting in September. His Majesty's Government in those circumstances are at present considering with all due care and a full sense of responsibility the answer that they must send in reply to this invitation. Hon. Members who were here at Question Time will agree that it is unnecessary for me to emphasise either the importance or the complexity or the delicacy of the issue before us. Any decision which members of the League may come to in the next three or four months will largely determine the role to be played by the League in the critical years that face us.
There are, however, one or two considerations which I should like to put before the Committee before we adjourn in an endeavour to place the matter in its proper perspective. I think I am revealing no secrets if I say that at our last meeting at Geneva during the Assembly, a considerable divergence of opinion revealed itself among the members of the League, even as to the procedure which is to be followed. There were some members who took the view that any changes which were made, or


discussion of any changes, even, should be confined to possible changes of three Articles, security articles I may call them, Articles 10, 11 and 16, and that the changes should not extend to Article 19, for instance, which has quite another kind of reference. That was what one set of people wished. Another set of nations, wished in no circumstances to limit the discussion which the Assembly might have when it met in September. Those were the two views on procedure. There were also fundamental differences as to the future of the League itself.
I think it is clear from that, and also clear from the correspondence we have seen in the Press and the wide divergence of views expressed in this House, that there is a difference of opinion also among our own people in the same way as there is among foreign nations. I should like to put to this Committee the two extremes. At one extreme are those who say they would like to see the Covenant shorn of what I may call its coercive or repressive provisions, who think that members of the League should be under no Covenant obligation, for example, even to withhold supplies of any kind from an aggressor or covenant breaker, or to discriminate actively in any way between an aggressor and the victim of the aggression still less to take military action. That is one extreme.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: What nations hold that view?

Mr. EDEN: I would rather not answer. At the other extreme are those who say they would like the obligation to render military assistance to the victim of aggression to be universal and automatic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I confess that it is news to me to hear those cheers from the benches opposite. I did not know that it was the view of hon. Members opposite that the obligation to take military action should be universal and automatic. I think hon. Members opposite must have been precipitate. But there is such a school, and it is the other extreme of that which I first described. I can assure the Committee that, whatever the final view of His Majesty's Government may be, they are not in favour of either of the two extreme courses to which I have made allusion. Between those two there is an almost infinite gradation of opinion.
In view of that situation both at home and abroad I do not think the Committee will quarrel with me if, at this moment, I say it would be premature for us to make a detailed public statement, more particularly since we are not asked, even by the procedure of the League, to make one before September. I go further, and I say that to do so now would not be in the interests of the international agreement which we wish to reach on this subject when we get to Geneva. Most important of all in this connection, I would ask the Committee to realise that we are not dealing in this matter of the future of the League only with an ideal, but also with a practical question, and that at this moment, when we are making attempts—in which, I may say, we have made some small progress—towards the settlement of those questions which to-day confront Europe, the relation of these two problems, that in connection with Locarno and this question which I have just discussed must not be lost sight of, because our objective in dealing with both of them must be to widen and to strengthen the basis of international collaboration.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry to intervene again, but surely it is very important that we should hear from the Government a general outline of their views. This matter is going to be discussed, and it is a matter upon which the whole life of the League depends. It is very important that the House of Commons, before it separates, should know what is the general attitude of His Majesty's Government towards these questions; not in minor details but there are questions of principle; for instance their attitude towards the coercive part of the League—I do not mean merely war, there are other methods. The Government cannot go there in September and express no views at all. After all, they represent the British Empire, the greatest Power in the League, and I do hope that we shall know before we separate what it is that the Government mean to propose when they get there.

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir, I cannot possibly say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give a lead."] Certainly not. Can we be sure that if the object we have at heart is to secure agreement we shall best do that by giving a lead beforehand, taking up a position when we see already two camps


where positions have been taken up? [Interruption.] Of course we do not speak for the British Empire. There is the position of the Dominions to be considered also. I should be making the gravest possible mistake if I were to attempt at this time rigidly to define our position. If hon. Members will do me the honour of reading the two extremes as I put them this afternoon, and will see what I have said in respect of both of them, they will be able to appreciate much in His Majesty's Government's position, but I am not prepared to go beyond that point at present, because I am sure that to do so would not only prejudice September but might also prejudice the meeting we were discussing earlier this afternoon.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: rose—

Mr. EDEN: There will be plenty of opportunity for hon. Members. I do not think I have been unreasonable to the Committee.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: The Committee have not been unreasonable to you.

Mr. JAGGER: You have merely been inadequate, as usual.

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member had had the responsibility which the Government have had to bear for some time past he would realise my position. I wish to speak on another subject on which many questions have been addressed to the Government, and that is their attitude in respect to the transference of territories at present held by them under Mandate. I should like, first, to revert for a moment to a subject which has of late grown up, as it were, alongside this question, and that is whether any arrangements are necessary or desirable for giving foreign countries freer access to such raw materials as are produced in the Mandated Territories and in the Colonies. This is a matter which has frequently been raised in debate by hon. Members in all parts of the House and the Government fully realise its importance. They are alive to the interest which is displayed in many quarters in these matters, and are fully prepared and will be glad to discuss the subject at some international conference under the auspices of the

League of Nations. At such a conference they would, for their part, be entirely ready to discuss such problems as wider guarantees for access to Colonial raw materials and obstacles in the path of such access. An approach to this matter might well be made, in our view, at the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly in September.
Having expressed that view, which I hope will command general acceptance, I return to the question of whether an actual transfer of territory held by them under mandate is contemplated by the Government. Let me make it clear that this question is one which affects, of course, all Mandatory Powers—the United Kingdom, the Dominion Governments and foreign Governments. The Government have not had any consultation with them upon it, but, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, the question of any transfer of Mandated Territories would inevitably raise grave difficulties, moral, political and legal, of which His Majesty's Government must frankly say that they have been unable to find any solution. His Majesty's Government therefore hope that, with so many other international questions still unsolved, but with new opportunity of advance towards their settlement having been afforded during the last few days, there will in no quarter be the desire at this time to introduce further cause of serious differences between the nations.
Now I turn to certain references made in the course of the last Debate on foreign affairs, to which I did not have in the circumstances the opportunity to reply. On that occasion, the Committee will remember, I announced the views of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the continuation of sanctions, and that expression of opinion brought us at the time much criticism and no little abuse. We were accused of cowardice, of having betrayed the League, and so forth. I think it must, however, be clear by now to all members of the Committee that the conclusion to which the Government had come and which I announced in the course of that Debate had also been come to about the same time, eleven sooner, and for precisely similar reasons, by almost all other members of the League, including some in whom hon. Members opposite appear to repose more confidence than they do in His Majesty's


Government. In this connection I should like to draw attention to certain observations made by other Governments at the meeting of the Assembly which were not all published in the British Press, and I do so not, I assure the Committee, in a purely controversial spirit, but because in this international question I think it is fair that the Committee should view the international aspect. First I will take a letter which was addressed to the Council by the Foreign Minister of Poland. This is what he said:
The members of the League undertook to take joint action with a view to stopping hostilities, and with the hope that the dispute would be settled by pacific means. In view of the most recent developments, we are obliged to recognise that our joint efforts met with collective failure. The measures we took did not achieve their aim, having, in the present case, proved to be inoperative, and have become useless. If, nevertheless, these sanctions were maintained, they would, in the opinion of the Polish Government, assume the character of punitive measures, and this would be going beyond the spirit of Article 16 of the Covenant. All these considerations have, for some time past, led the Polish Government to think that the Measures which have been taken have no further object.
That was dated 26th June. Now I come to a speech which will influence hon. Members opposite more than one by the Foreign Secretary of Poland; I refer to the Foreign Secretary of Soviet Russia. This is what M. Litvinoff said, in a very frank speech.

Mr. GALLACHER: He is always frank. That is more than you are.

Mr. EDEN: He said:
Sooner that might have been expected, the moment came when the necessity for reconsidering the measures adopted at Geneva, from the angle of serving any useful purpose, became absolutely clear. That moment was when the resistance of the gallant Ethiopian troops was broken and when the Emperor and Government of Ethiopia left their country, and when a considerable portion of their territory was occupied by the Italian Army. It appeared then indubitable that, by the economic sanctions alone, it was impossible to drive the Italian Army out of Ethiopia and restore the independence of that country, and that such an objective could only be obtained by more serious sanctions, including those of a military nature. Such measures could only be considered if one or several States could be found which, in virtue of their geographical position or special interests, would agree to bear the main brunt of a military encounter. Such States are not to be found among us.

I think the Committee will agree that that is precisely the argument which I am now putting forward. M. Litvinoff goes on:
I came to the conclusion even during the May Session of the Council of the League, that the further application of economic sanctions was useless, and that it was impossible to afford any practical aid to Ethiopia in that way. It seems that this conclusion was reached by nearly all the members of the League.
I have other quotations, but I think the Committee will fairly appreciate from that argument that the conclusion to which His Majesty's Government have come, that, after the Emperor's departure, no action save military action from outside, could have been of avail, had been arrived at at virtually the same time or sooner, by almost all the other members of the League in possession of the full facts of the situation.
I want to turn to one other observation made during the last Debate on the Foreign Office Vote, because it has had more than a temporary significance, and that is the observation then made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). There was one sentence in his speech which, he will not be surprised to learn, aroused exceptional interest both in this country and abroad. He said:
There is one thing the people of this country have made up their minds definitely about. Whatever Government is in power they will never go to war again for an Austrian quarrel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1936; col. 1228, Vol. 313.]
It was no doubt difficult for Members of the Committee at that time to appreciate what were the reasons for the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman was then drawing between Abyssinia and Austria. The right hon. Gentleman wished to confine the distinction to sanctions.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to something which I have said. I said and I still say, and when I come to explain my views in regard to the amendment of the League I shall be still of that opinion, that you will not get this country to go to war in respect of any quarrel in that part of the world. Sanctions I put in a different category—in a totally different category. I never said, and I do not say now, that if there is a quarrel in another part of Europe other than Western Europe, where we have definite engagements, you will not have economic and other sanctions


and that we will not join in them. I draw a complete distinction. That is the line upon which we ought to proceed in connection with the League.

Mr. EDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also remember the statement which he made. The implications of that statement were noted not only here but abroad. If the Committee were astonished, as I was, at what the right hon. Gentleman said then, and the distinction he appeared to draw, they would be all the more astonished if they stopped for a moment to consider this point: whereas the frontiers of Ethiopia were somewhat vague and uncertain, the frontiers of Austria were drawn by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never suggested war.

Mr. EDEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will develop that point later. I am anxious that the Committee should realise that the right hon. Gentleman's generalisation, like most generalisations, is dangerously misleading. In his desire to dramatise, the right hon. Gentleman has over-simplified. I say in his presence that it was not simply an Austrian quarrel which involved us in war in 1914; it was an Austrian quarrel that became an invasion of Belgium. Therein lies the problem which confronts us in the international situation. It is a fact that we have undertaken certain obligations in respect of certain parts of Europe, obligations which we will fulfil; it is also a fact that we had not made our position clear in 1914 in that respect, as we have made it clear now. The fact that we have certain obligations in certain parts of Europe—I say this for the Government—does not mean that we disinterest ourselves to-day from what happens in the rest of Europe. Is there indeed a conflict in Europe that can be localised? If the flames are lit, will they not spread, and is not, therefore, the peace of all Europe the concern of all Europe?
Here I come to the other side of our problem. Every country in Europe will not fight for each country in Europe, and there, in an antithesis, is the extent of our present problem. In my view, and I think that is the view which hon. Gentlemen were trying to express just now, if every nation in Europe, and better still

every nation in the world, would give an undertaking which it would carry out, to go to the help of any victim of aggression, not only by economic and financial sanctions but by military sanctions, our problem would, I believe, in a very considerable measure, be resolved, more particularly if you accompanied that, as the authors of the covenant intended you should accompany it, under Article 8, by some limitation and reduction of armaments; but, and that is our difficulty, that is not the reality with which we are confronted. Every nation, even those, like our French friends, who have most upheld the rigid enforcement of Article 16, has now come to realise that every nation is not prepared to go to war for each nation. That ideal is at present unattainable, and suggestions for reform of the League put forward by the French Government or anyone else all take account of that fact.
Therefore, I submit to the Committee, it is the task of statesmanship, a very difficult task, basing itself upon the realities of that situation, to try to seek to improve it. It is not an unfair commentary on the extent of our problem that M. Litvinoff made, if I may quote him again, in his speech at the Assembly in Geneva, when he told us that 25 per cent. of the Members of the League had not wholly carried out even the sanctions that were imposed. I mention that in no spirit of criticism, but merely to show the extent of our problem.
Before I conclude, may I say a word to hon. Members opposite on the subject of armaments in relation to foreign policy, referred to in their declaration last Friday. A few days ago, some hon. Gentlemen opposite took exception to some words which fell from my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in a speech which I think he made at Southampton, in reference to the effect upon foreign opinion of British rearmament and their attitude towards it. It is true—I make hon. Members opposite a present of this point—that if they ask me whether representatives of foreign countries have been down to the Foreign Office to express on behalf of their Governments their official approval of our rearmament policy, quite obviously the answer is "No"; but there is no need for Ambassadors to speak officially, or even for Governments to speak, in order that hon. Members on the other


side, wherever they may sit, may find out for themselves what is the opinion of foreign countries on the question of our re-armament. Let them ask, if they will, their own friends in some of the smaller countries in Europe; let them consult the files of the Press in those few countries where the Press is still free. They will find what the small countries of Europe, and virtually all the remaining democratic countries in the world, think of British rearmament. They approve of it. Why? The answer is simple; because they know perfectly well that our armaments will never be used in a war of aggression. They are perfectly right in their assumption. I would ask the Committee to take note of this: Our armaments, for which we are asking, will, in fact, never be used for a purpose inconsistent with the Covenant of the League or the Pact of Paris. They will not. That is the undertaking. They might, and, if the occasion arose, they would be, used in self-defence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to find that all sections of the Committee approve that statement.

Mr. THORNE: Hands up for that, mate.

Mr. EDEN: That is a purpose perfectly proper, under the terms of the Covenant of the League and the Pact of Paris.

Mr. GALLACHER: Too ambiguous. The defence of Europe or the defence of ourselves? What is happening in Spain?

Mr. EDEN: They may be used in going to the help of a victim of aggression. In those conditions, do hon. Members really believe that the cause of peace will be furthered, in a rapidly rearming world, by voting against the rearmament of this country? I know quite well the official explanation which has been given, but I would say to hon. Members opposite: If you vote "No," you ought to mean "No." I would ask hon. Members to recognise—I admit that this is the Foreign Office point of view—how foreign countries are likely to interpret that vote, or, if you like, to misinterpret it. Non-parliamentary countries will not understand the explanation, and the perfectly legitimate Parliamentary manoeuvre which is involved in the explanation. What they will think is that

there is a deep division of opinion in this country on whether we should arm to defend ourselves; in other words, they will think that there is a deep division on the very subject on which we have just secured complete unanimity. I would ask the Committee to believe that I am very much in earnest on this subject, because I am convinced that there is a danger of misunderstanding, and it is purely in order to avoid that happening, and in order that an opinion should not go out from this Committee which is a wrong opinion, that I venture to make this appeal to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee, is the rearmament policy of the Government for the purpose of self-defence, as he has just indicated, or is it for the purpose of and consistent with collective security?

Mr. EDEN: The two things are perfectly consistent with one another. Surely, they must be. If they are not consistent, the only argument is that you must go and help any other victim of aggression but you must not help yourselves. I know perfectly well that the hon. Member does not mean that, and that is why I say that the two propositions are perfectly consistent.

Mr. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman challenged Members on this side of the House by saying that the object of the Government's rearmament policy was for the purpose of our own defence. There are some of us on this side of the House who are prepared to defend this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—hon. Members on the other side have no greater record than some of us on this side. What we want made plain is whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that, so far as his Government is concerned, the armed forces of this country will only be used under and for the purposes of the Covenant, because, if that be so, it would cover any attack by any other country on this country.

Mr. EDEN: I have already said quite clearly that these armaments will not be used for any purpose inconsistent with the Covenant and inconsistent with the Pact of Paris. If the hon. Member will do me the honour of examining my speech carefully, he will find that I have fully met the point which he has in mind. My sole anxiety is that there should not


appear to be a division of opinion at home which I am sure does not exist.
It will clearly remain the duty of the Government, and this undertaking I wish to give also, to seize any opportunity that may offer of further agreement on limitation of armaments. It is possible that an opportunity for that may come sooner than some people think, for the pressure on the economy of nations of the present very heavy burden of armaments is extremely severe, and a moment may arrive when a realisation of that comes to be accepted in many quarters where it might be ridiculed at the present time. At any rate, for the moment I can say that I am sure we are not furthering the cause of peace, nor even the cause of armaments agreement, by blindly refusing to take note of events in the present troubled world.
I have sought to survey the international field and to give to the Committee some impression of the problems with which the Government, and more particularly we at the Foreign Office, are confronted to-day. Even so, long as I have spoken, I have not exhausted the sources of pre-occupation with which we are confronted at the present time. In presenting this picture, I have tried to show that the Government have pursued, lately, I think, with some small measure of success, a considerable objective, which is the maintenance of peace—an objective which is keenly shared and keenly held by Members in every part of the House. If in what I have said, more particularly with respect to the armaments programme, I have been able to do anything at all to promote national unity in these matters, I shall be well content. We live in a Europe suffering from an almost total eclipse of liberal opinion—spelling "liberal" with a small "1"—a Europe where there is a tendency for extremes to rule, extremes with which no section of opinion in this House can feel sympathy. We in this country have a free Press and a free opinion. There are liberties which we mean to maintain, but they carry with them their responsibilities of justice, of judgment, and of restraint. In a world where both those liberties and those responsibilities are rare, the democracies must find their unity if they are to survive and to hand on to other generations the liberties of which they have been proud.

5.23 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I have never failed to pay my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the elevation of his sentiments, the persuasiveness of his advocacy, and the form and manner of his speeches, even when I have disagreed fundamentally with their matter; but to-day let me say at once that he has gone some way to convince me that he is on the right lines. I might, perhaps, have held more definite language if his references to the reform of the League had been more precise and illuminating, but that part of his speech which gave me most satisfaction was his exposition of his plans for dealing with the situation which has been created in Europe by what is somewhat euphemistically described in the communiqué issued by his Department as the German initiative of last March. I was glad he took the line that he did, because it showed that he was not prepared to regard his negotiations with the German Government as having failed. It showed that he was resolved that the nations of Europe should not be allowed to become set into two opposing groups, and he made it clear that he was not going to be put oft by the difficulties which he had encountered in his negotiations with Germany.
He made some references to the questionnaire which a few weeks ago he addressed to the German Government. He said that that questionnaire was neither inquisitive nor acrimonious. When it was published, I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and so did a very large number of people representing all sections of opinion. Since then, unfortunately—and I think it is a grave misfortune—the German Government have not seen their way to answer that questionnaire, and now I notice in the most unsuspected quarters the growth of a realisation that, after all, the questionnaire was very clumsily worded, and that it was a matter for grave criticism. I have not changed my view, but at the same time I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has shown that he is not going to allow this obstacle to stand in the way of getting Germany round a conference table, and that he is going to pursue that objective further.
As I understand his plan, it is to bring, in the first place, Germany, France, Italy


and Belgium to a conference, which itself is to be preliminary to a further conference at which Russia and other States members of the League will seek a constructive solution of the political and economic problems of the world. That is to say, there is to be a preliminary conference, at which complete equality of status and treatment will be accorded to Germany, and then a wider conference, which will in fact be a peace conference, but a peace conference which will meet, not after a war in order to tidy up the ruins, but before war in order to avert a catastrophe, to banish the fear of war, to lift the hideous and crushing burden of armaments, and to substitute world co-operation in the production and distribution of wealth for the deadly spirit of economic nationalism. If these are the objects of the Secretary of State, I am for them, too, and, if he pursues them boldly and with greater tenacity of purpose than the Government have hitherto shown in their foreign policy, he will have no more ardent supporter than myself.
But the enterprise will be long, arduous and dangerous. There will, as the Secretary of State said in his speech, have to be much diplomatic preparation. The great structure which he has envisaged can never be built upon the shifting sands of power politics and military alliances, but only on the firm and wide foundations of the League Covenant. In his references to the League, his speech was unfortunately, even if inevitably, vague. Again, while we may assume that the Secretary of State will do all in his power to deserve success, he cannot command it, if only for the reason which was given by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson) in one of our recent Debates on this subject, that, foreign affairs are, after all, foreign affairs and are not entirely within the control of the Government. In the event of a failure, the League of Nations would provide the only means of sharing, with other nations, our world-wide risks of aggression, and of building up a system of collective security so strong as to be an effective deterrent against going to war; while, in the second place, the League, not being an exclusive military alliance against any Power or Powers, keeps its doors open to all who will abjure force and submit disputes to conciliation and

arbitration. Therefore, even if the Secretary of State fails in his enterprise at his first attempt, the League provides a foundation always ready and prepared for a further effort.
I, therefore, listened with strained attention to what the right hon. Gentleman would have to tell us about the proposals for the reform of the League which the Government are considering. He told us that a detailed and public statement would be premature. I felt keen disappointment, because we are on the eve of separating for the Recess and I hoped he would be able to give us, if only, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, in general terms an indication that the Government would give support to the League as we know it at present, that is to say, a League based upon a Covenant containing Articles 10 and 16. Yet the right hon. Gentleman left that deliberately vague and, when he criticised hon. Members above the Gangway for their attitude to rearmament, I could not help reflecting that it is the very vagueness of the Government's policy in regard to the League which gives great sections of opinion serious qualms about supporting the plans for rearmament that the Government are putting forward. The right hon. Gentleman made an eloquent plea for national unity in support of the Government's policy. I believe nothing would be better calculated to secure that national unity than a clear declaration by the Government that it stood loyally by the Covenant of the League, certainly with amendments, modifications and interpretations, but broadly as it is at present, and above all, a Covenant which includes Articles 10, 11 and 16, which as he himself said this afternoon, provide the indispensable foundation for a system of collective security.
I said that certain amendments, or at least interpretations, of the Covenant of the League were necessary. I will tell the Committee what I mean. Broadly speaking, I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said in the last Foreign Affairs Debate in which he took part, that the League is sufficiently loose in its constitution to adapt itself to almost any contingency. What, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is needed is that, once


you have undertaken a line of action, you should stand by it. Certainly it would be a notable triumph if, as the result of the negotiations in which the Secretary of State is now about to engage, Germany were to re-enter the League and if the League were for the first time to include every country of Europe. But in my view that triumph would be too dearly bought if it involved the weakening of the Covenant of the League. The two main functions of the League are defence against aggression and the assertion of the rule of law on the one hand, and the adjustment of political and economic forces by peaceful means on the other. The first involves the creation of a system of collective security, and the sacrifice of Articles 10, 11 and 16, whether to please certain supporters of the Government—the cheers that welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's rather vague references to the opinions of certain Powers on that subject showed that it would please certain of his supporters, if indeed, he chose to follow that policy—or to please certain Powers either inside or outside the League, would make a system of collective security impossible, and must, therefore, be strenuously resisted by all supporters of the League.
On the contrary, the foundation provided for collective security by those Articles needs widening by an amendment of Article 11. Under Article 11 as now drafted a potential aggressor can, by his single vote, hold up action by the League to check preparations for aggression. I said "as now drafted." It might perhaps be more accurate to say, "as now interpreted," but the fact remains that, as it is now interpreted, an aggressor can, by his single vote, hold up action by the League to check preparations for aggression. That is why we had to witness all last summer the shocking spectacle of the Italian Government making preparations on a colossal scale for aggression against Abyssinia, while the League felt itself unable to do anything until a definite act of aggression had been committed. Article 11 should, therefore, be so re-interpreted as to make it possible for the League to take action to check preparations for war even before aggression is actually committed without counting the votes of disputing Powers. As for the other main function of the

League, Article 19 needs to be so strengthened as to make it clear that any State member of the League should have a right to ask the Assembly to appoint a commission of inquiry into any specified international conditions which either render a treaty obsolete and inapplicable or might endanger peace. On receiving the report of this commission of inquiry the Assembly should offer advice to the Powers concerned as to their action and, if the advice is disregarded, the situation should be considered under Article 11, strengthened in the way I have suggested.
It is when we come to consider this hitherto sadly neglected side—the constructive side—of the League's activities that we come to the crux of the Secretary of State's problem, for the real problem of peace is an economic problem. Tariffs, quotas, exchange restrictions, Colonial preferences and false conceptions of economic nationalism and self-sufficiency are spreading unemployment and impoverishment throughout a world, which is potentially rich enough to give abundance to all. The fact that the population of Italy is increasing by 400,000 a year, and that all doors are shut to the migration of the Italian people, presents a real problem to the solution of which the conquest of Abyssinia can make no appreciable contribution. Germany is faced with a similar problem, which not even the restoration of all her pre-war colonies would appreciably help to solve. We now know that the Government have declared that the figures first announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) are in all probability not exaggerated—that Germany is spending £800,000,000 a year on armaments. Obviously the one acid test of the value and sincerity of any general agreement such as the right hon. Gentleman is striving to accomplish will be all round disarmament. What, will happen in the event of disarmament to the economic and financial structure of Germany and the 3,000,000 Germans now employed in armaments production unless world trade can be revived and enormously expanded? The only complete solution of these problems lies in the free movement of capital, goods and men over the surface of the globe. The right hon. Gentleman's policy can never succeed unless it registers a real and substantial


advance towards that goal. His predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), talked in his great speech at Geneva in September about an inquiry into access to raw materials, but nothing has been done. Something must be done quickly and on a bigger scale if disaster is to be be averted.
There are other amendments or interpretations of the Covenant of a minor character which I should be willing to support, and there is one proposal that I would make to the Government which would not I think require any amendment, or indeed in a technical sense any interpretation of the Covenant. Nevertheless, it is a weapon that ought to be added to the armoury of the League. That is to accept for ourselves, and to ask our fellow members of the League to accept, an obligation not to give private or public loans or credits to any State which has an unresolved difference with the League, and I would ask whether the Government is prepared to accept such an obligation for itself—that is the most important part of my question to which I wish particularly to ask for an answer—and to urge its acceptance by the other members of the League.
I feel no enthusiasm for a renewal of the Locarno Treaty supplemented by a Western Air Pact, except on two conditions. The first is that it leads to some immediate and substantial measure of disarmament. In particular, I see no value in a Western Air Pact unless it includes an effective measure for the limitation and reduction of air armaments. The second is that it is immediately followed by a further conference in which Russia should be accorded, by Germany and by Britain and all the other Powers, the same equality of status and fairness of treatment as Germany now rightly claims for herself. This is the course upon which the Secretary of State has embarked, for, though I have perhaps gone rather further than he indicated, I hope he does not altogether dissent. There were, indeed, in some parts of his speech phrases about the League which I liked better than those that he used when he was actually referring to the reform of the League.
If this is, indeed, a true indication of the policy that he is pursuing, he will, of course, find lions in his path. The first

lion is that group of hon. Members which, from newspaper reports, would seem to be particularly strong in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Conservative party, who would confine our obligations for military action to the defence of British interests and would, therefore, tear up the Covenant and bid the British Empire take cover behind the Maginot line. The argument is familiar. Are we to be committed to send troops to South America if the war between Paraguay and Bolivia breaks out afresh? Of course not. It is mere unscrupulous propaganda against the League to represent our military obligations under the Covenant as being unlimited. They were defined, in Annexe F of the Treaty of Locarno, in accordance with Article 16 of the Covenant and the 1921 resolutions of the Assembly, as being to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with our military situation and takes our geographical position into account.
Certainly, as long as we are loyal to the Covenant, neutrality as between an aggressor and his victim is out of the question. We cannot continue to supply the aggressor with the means to make his aggression effective. Therefore, we must impose sanctions. We need not declare war on the aggressor, but if he attacks us—and this seems to go to the root of the controversy between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—in an endeavour to break through the sanctions ring, we must be prepared to resist the attack. I am confident, from such contact as I have had with public opinion, and especially with the opinion of the War and post-war generations, that it is fully alive to the distinction which was so tersely drawn by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) in a recent letter to "The Times"; the distinction between making war on another nation and not being deterred from following a wise and righteous policy by the fear that another nation would make war on us.
We are told, "Let us make ourselves safe in the West, and leave the Teuton and the Slav to fight it out in the East." That was our policy, less definitely defined, in 1914. If you had asked the people of this country to say, "What are you prepared to fight for?" or had had


a plebiscite to ask the people what they were prepared to fight for—if you had asked the people in 1914, "Will you fight for Serbia?" there would have been one unanimous shout of "No." Yet the torch was set alight at Sarajevo of all the outlandish places in Europe to fight about. Some hon. Members who are perhaps in this House now will remember that "John Bull" came out with a contents bill, "To Hell with Serbia," not a very noble or Christian, but a very prevalent, sentiment at the time. Neither was it a very far-sighted view, for the next week the contents bill was changed, and it read, "England's Hour of Greatest Glory." And we are closer together now than we were then. The new and all-pervasive menace of the air is actual. We shall find no safety behind the Maginot line. We cannot, if we would, disinterest ourselves in the conflict—Burke called it the eternal conflict—between the rule of law and arbitrary power whether it breaks out in the east, or west, or north, or south. If we are resolute in our loyalty to the Covenant, the conflict will not be eternal, for the League gives us the means, if we have the will, so to order the world that whatsoever is just is mighty and whatsoever is mighty is just.
The other lion in the path of the Secretary of State is the group of Members headed by the strange combination of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who have tabled a resolution that the transfer of any British Mandated Territory is not a discussable question. I certainly would not agree to transfer one of our Mandates to Germany in present circumstances, or indeed to any country which is not a member of the League of Nations. But to ask His Majesty's Government to tell the German Government that the matter is not discussable at all is merely making their task unnecessarily difficult. Look at Germany's neighbours. Russia has an Empire, Italy has an Empire, Spain has an Empire, Portugal has an Empire, Britain has an Empire, Belgium has an Empire, Holland has an Empire, France has an Empire, and certainly it cannot in these circumstances seriously be said that the question whether Germany should have a colony is not discussable.

Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary

as Foreign Secretary and the present Foreign Secretary went to Berlin in 1935, and that they informed the House when they came back, as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that they had informed the German Chancellor that the transfer of Mandates was not a discussable question?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have not seen the particular communiqué to which the hon. Member refers. I hope that he will not interrupt me again. He and his friends no doubt will have an opportunity in this Debate later on of dealing with this very important question. I repeat that to make a blunt, unqualified statement—[An HON. MEMBER: "It has already been done."] To put on the Order Paper of the House of Commons at this very critical juncture in the negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman is beginning, a blunt unqualified statement that the transfer of a Mandated Territory to Germany is not a discussable question—it does not say not now or in the present circumstances or while Germany is not a member of the League—is to make the task of the Foreign Secretary unnecessarily hard. To transfer a Mandated Territory to any Power which is not a member of the League, to transfer a Mandated Territory without taking into consideration the wishes of the native inhabitants, to transfer it without guarantees for the fulfilment of the conditions of the Mandate, would, of course, be impossible.
I certainly say that to barter a mandated territory merely for a few years' peace in one corner of Europe—in the western half of Europe—would be a wholly indefensible policy. To say without qualification that it is not discussable certainly cannot be said with any force or dignity by those who supported the Government in yielding to Italy in the struggle against aggression in Abyssinia, whose independance and integrity we were as much pledged to defend against aggression by our signature to the Covenant of the League as we are pledged to defend our own territory. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen seem to be advancing under a banner with a strange device, "We yield, but we do not discuss." So as the Secretary of State passes on his journey through the stately Palace of Westminster, he will find two lions in his path; but let him be of good cheer. The porter at the


gate whose name is the Patronage Secretary will assure him that they are chained, and as he passes by he will hear them roar, but they will do him no harm.
Time forbids me to pass more than a very few words of comment upon the other important topics which the Secretary of State dealt with in his speech. As regards Egypt, we on these benches welcome the account which the Secretary of State gave of the substantial progress which has been made towards a settlement, which we hope and believe will strengthen the ties of mutual respect and friendship which bind the people of Egypt to the people of Britain. We rejoice at the success of the conference at Montreux, and we join with the right hon. Gentleman in the tributes which he has paid to the First Commissioner of Works and to my Noble Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Let me say frankly that, as I do not spare the right hon. Gentleman in my criticism when I disagree with him, I would like to pay tribute to him, for with characteristic modesty he omitted all mention of his own share in these transactions. He is responsible as Secretary of State for the successful conduct of these negotiations at Egypt and at Montreux. I would like to add on the subject of the Conference at Montreux, that I am very glad that we are relieved of the liability for keeping open the Straits, which, I think, we ought never to have assumed. I am glad indeed that we have been able to give what the Secretary of State described as a valuable example of the progress which can be made by methods of peaceful revision, and as one who was a member of a small band of Liberals who fought the Treaty of Lausanne when it was brought before this House in 1924, I can say with sincerity that in my view nothing in its life became it like the leaving of it.
I would have ventured, if time had permitted to have joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman in the last part of his speech when he defended the abandonment of sanctions against Italy. I was sorry that he did not make some reference—I know that it is a painful subject with him, and it is a painful subject for all of us—to the fate and the future of Abyssinia. After all, we have incurred a great responsibility. We have all incurred this responsibility, first of all, by signing the Covenant. The right hon.

Gentleman the Member for Chelsea and all his colleagues in the Government accepted a grave responsibility when he made his speech in Geneva in September of last year. Perhaps the Government accepted towards the Abyssinians a still greater responsibility when they threw out the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea—and I think that they did right at that time—and encouraged the Abyssinians to continue their resistance. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea and the abandonment of the Hoare-Laval negotiations encouraged the Abyssinians to continue their resistance. He cannot deny that; of course he cannot. The Government and all of us have a great responsibility towards those unhappy people.
I want to know, and I think that the public want to know what the Government are going to do about the recognition of the Italian annexation. I ask the Government before this Debate closes tonight, to give us an assurance that that annexation is not going to be recognised and that no difficulty will be made about the representation of Abyssinia at the meeting of the Assembly in September by the Emperor or by his authorised representative. I ask the Government to tell us what their view is on the proposal which I made that loans and credits should not be extended to any country which has an unresolved difference with the League, and I want to know whether that principle will be applied to Italy as long as she remains in unlawful occupation of Abyssinia. I want to know that the Government will not place any difficulty in the way of the return of the Emperor to his country, and in the way of the importation of arms to those tribes who still, after all, while they are fighting for the freedom of their country must enjoy and ought to enjoy belligerent rights.
Unfortunately, in no sphere of policy have the Government a more discreditable record of shuffling vacillation than in that of foreign policy. We ought in fairness to absolve the present occupant of the Foreign Office from some of these strictures because he entered into an inheritance which had been compromised by folly and vacillation before he took the office. Therefore, for my part I propose, at any rate for some time, to suspend judgment


about his occupancy of the office and to give him what support I can on the policies that he may be pursuing with which I agree.
But what has been the policy of the Government as a whole for the last 18 months? Eighteen months ago they reacted to Herr Hitler's repudiation of the military Clauses of the Versailles Treaty, by sending the Foreign Secretary, who is now Home Secretary, to Berlin, presumably to come to a friendly understanding. A week or two later the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary fluttered off by air to Stresa to condemn Germany and to form the now notorious Stresa front against the German Government. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for the last time at a critical juncture in foreign affairs, emitted a discordant note:
If unmelodious was the song,
It was a hearty note and strong.
It was so strong that it provoked an equally strong remonstrance from the Ministers at Stresa. Then back to London for the hurried conclusion of an agreement with Herr Hitler about naval armaments. All that happened in three months. Within the next six months our foreign policy was changed so often that we had three Foreign Ministers within that period. One of them has since returned to the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty, and our foreign policy has been changed again.
Was it not Burke who said that great men were the guideposts and landmarks of the State? But who could set a course by these guideposts and landmarks which are fixed in no theme or principle of policy but move erratically hither and thither, gesticulating wildly now to Paris, now to Berlin, now to Stresa, now to Geneva, now to Abyssinia, now to Rome. They are less like guideposts and landmarks than victims of St. Vitus' dance.
Nine months ago the Abyssinians were shedding their blood for freedom and, incidentally, for the principles of the Covenant; the military dictatorships in Europe were divided; the States Members of the League were, with insignificant exceptions, united in vigorous action to uphold the Covenant; American sympathy and interest in the League struggle was aroused and actively growing; public opinion in this country was almost solid behind the Government

and the League. Now, Abyssinia lies prostrate; the arbitrary power of Italy has triumphed—it may be as I hope that it will be, only temporarily—over the principle of law represented by the League; American sympathy is chilled; the dictatorships have been united; the League powers are divided. The Secretary of State said only this afternoon that they are divided by fundamental differences of outlook on the future of the League. Public opinion here is baffled, confused and disillusioned. The historians of the future may well look back upon the past nine months as the most humiliating and disastrous nine months in the history of our foreign policy.
To ask us at this stage to give the Government our confidence and support, in face of this humiliating sequel to the great speech of the right hon. Member for Chelsea at Geneva in September last, would be to ask too much, especially in the absence of firm and precise assurances with regard to the future of the League. But transcending all party interests, all national interests, all world interests is the cause of peace. To secure peace on a sure foundation of justice, economic co-operation and international good-will must be the supreme objective of British policy. If the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can hold his Government steadily to a course of loyalty to the Covenant and the League, and to the course which he has charted for the two pending conferences; if he can prove in action the devotion of his Government to the ideals of the League, which he has so often and so eloquently expressed in words; if he can deal firmly with the opposition which he must expect from influential vested interests and from some among his own supporters, he will not only secure for his Government at home truly national support, but he will also enable Great Britain once more to exercise a beneficent, majestic, and, as I believe, decisive influence on the destinies of the world.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We are glad that the hon. Members below the Gangway asked for the putting down of the Foreign Office Vote on this occasion, and we are indebted to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the comprehensive


survey which he has given in his speech. Although on the largest and the principal issue there is, and there will be, severe criticisms of His Majesty's Government, I am glad to confirm the common support that there is in all sections of the House in regard to the other important though, in comparison, minor issues of foreign policy. The right hon. Gentleman has told us of what has happened in regard to the Locarno Powers, and he made it perfectly plain that, satisfactory as has been the preliminary stage which has already been passed through, the major discussion is yet to come. Therefore, I would only say that I endorse what has been said by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that we hope that the further conference of the Five Powers will not be the final stage, because it is clear that if the peace of the world is to be attained it cannot be attained piecemeal. Peace is indivisible, and a still larger body of national Powers must be brought together if real peace is to be attained.
I join with the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in his congratulations to the Foreign Secretary on the result of the Turkish discussions. I agree entirely, and I am sure that my hon. Friends on these benches will agree, with the words of praise of the Turkish Government with regard to their approach to this problem—a happy contrast to what has taken place with regard to other nations. With respect to Egypt, I am very glad to think that there is a prospect of settling an issue which has been a bone of contention ever since the War. I hope that it will be settled in a manner which will be satisfactory to our very good friends the Egyptian people, that it will give them what they desire in the furtherance of their national aspirations and that at the same time it will be beneficial to such British interests as lie in that part of the world.
In regard to Spain, there is one question which I should like to ask. It is an important question, and I would ask the Foreign Secretary either to answer it immediately, in which case I will give way, or, if he prefers, to allow it to be answered at the conclusion of the Debate. It has been stated that the British representatives at Gibraltar have not acted up fully to the common courtesy of nations and have not given to the warships of the

Spanish Government the requisitions of food or fuel for which they have asked. I take no responsibility for that statement, and I hope that it is untrue. If that be so, I hope the Foreign Secretary or the Under-Secretary will give an explanation, which I hope will be a denial.
Having dealt with the important but minor issues, I come to the major question of the Debate. This is the last Debate on foreign affairs this Session. I have listened, and I am sure that other hon. Members have listened, in the hope of discovering what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the large foreign issues and the maintenance of peace. We have listened in previous Debates and have gone away unsatisfied. We have listened again to-day and we are as much in the dark as we were before we came. This is no academic question. What are the principles on which the British Government are prepared to act? This is the question which people in every part of the country are asking. It is the question which is being asked all over the civilised world. The Foreign Secretary says that at one end of the scale there are people who want to do absolutely nothing for collective security and peace, and at the other end there are those who want to plunge us into war, and that somewhere between the two stands His Majesty's Government, but at what precise point whether nearer to one section of people or the other or in the middle he is not in a position to say. It is as if the right hon. Gentleman were asked in what part of the world he was prepared to live and he answered: "There are the Seven Seas and on some continent there is land surrounded by one of the Seven Seas, and there I propose to dwell."
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that what was as much responsible for this country being involved in the terrible struggle of 1914–18 was the uncertainty which existed in 1914 as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that statement. Had Germany known for certain that we were committed to France, and that whatever Germany did we were going in on the side of France, it is quite likely—it is probable, that Germany would never have embarked on the War. Had we, on the other hand, not been committed


to France, had we made it perfectly clear that we would take no part in the War unless Belgium was invaded—the right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was the sole cause of our being brought into the War, although I doubt whether he could seriously maintain that proposition—I think it is quite likely that Germany would never have invaded Belgium, and we should not have been involved in the War. Had we taken a firm line with the Tsarist Russian Government I think the War might have been stopped in another way. The War broke out just because the world did not know, Germany did not know, the actual position of our Government; and the War having begun the policy and principles of His Majesty's Government at that time were not well known. Had we had reasonable aims, had we had a policy of justice and a just peace, the War might have been brought to an early end. As a matter of fact, our policy was dictated by the secret Treaties which made for a long and devastating conflict and an unjust peace. From that unjust peace many of our recent troubles have arisen.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there was some ambiguity in 1914 but that to-day our position is quite clear. Is it quite clear? The right hon. Gentleman may have some understanding which makes it clear with regard to France and Belgium, but what is absolutely covered with mist and fog is our policy in regard to any other part of the world, and it is just that question which the world is asking to-day. It may very well be that because the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have not given an answer to that question, that a war may break out which might have been avoided had the answer been perfectly clear. I am certain that the policy of this Government is not known to anyone outside the Government. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has no intention of answering that question one way or the other to-day, and I am very doubtful whether the views and intentions on the major principles which lie behind the Government's policy are known inside the Government and whether there is not the same uncertainty, divergence and conflict of opinion, inside the Government as to their policy as there is outside. I

am not even certain that the two extremes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, those who say that we ought to do nothing with regard to the League of Nations, and those who say that we ought to do everything, do not find expression inside the Cabinet itself. The conflicting expressions of opinion which we have heard from Members of the Government suggest that I am not very far out in my surmise.
What are the possibilities in regard to policy? What is meant by foreign policy? What is meant by a defence policy? Let us consider what possible policies there are. A policy of pure non-resistance is not the view of any large body of opinion in this House or in the country, and there is no hope that it can be the adopted policy of the country. Then there is the policy of defence merely of the shores of this country. I am aware that it is not the actual policy put forward by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, but I think he intended to give the impression to a large body of opinion in the country that defence means the defence of our own homes; he suggested that that was the object of a large part of the forces of this country. But in fact that is not the policy of His Majesty's Government; and it is not a policy which could be supported for this country. It may be possible for a strong China or for a country like that which "The Times" rather impolitely refers to as a hippopotamus, namely, Soviet Russia, and it might be a policy for the United States of America. The area of these great Empires is continuous and compact and a defence of their own shores might be an adequate and suitable policy, but for the British Empire, which spreads into every sea, which has outlying districts and trade routes which must be traversed in security, any such policy is entirely out of the question. There is no use saying that the defence of our homes has really nothing to do with foreign policy. It has everything to do with foreign policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] If the hon. Member will read the speech of the Minister for the Coordination of Defence he will fully understand the reference I am making. I am aware of what the Minister actually said.
The question is: "With what is our foreign policy concerned, and for what things are we prepared to risk our


forces? The Home Secretary, speaking about a month ago, said that the Government were not prepared to risk a single ship or man on behalf of Abyssinian independence. For what are we prepared to risk them? That is the real question, the real issue, which at some point or other the Government will have to face. The Government are asking us to support their policy and their rearmament programme. But what are the things for which they are prepared to take a risk I have no doubt that they are prepared to risk on behalf of these Islands, and on behalf of the Dominions. I have no doubt that they are prepared to risk on behalf of the British Colonies and on behalf of the trade routes. And what else? If they are prepared to risk on behalf of these things, are they or are they not prepared to take any risks on behalf of public right; for the protection of the independence of countries which are not part of the British Empire? I suggest that this country cannot disinterest itself from public right. It cannot, in the long run, be in the interests of the British Empire or any part of it that we should disinterest ourselves from public right. These increased armaments are no substitute for a sound foreign policy. Unless the policy of the Government is sound, no massed might of our own strength will defend some outlying part in the British Empire affected by an aggressor or even our own shores.
The Government in their policy are thinking in terms of the 19th century instead of the second quarter of the 20th century to which we belong. What is the essential difference between the position to-day and the position 25 years ago? The essential difference is that for strategic purposes this country of ours has ceased to be an island. In the 19th century a strong fleet, controlled by our own country to guard our own land, could not only guard our land from attack but could and did protect our food supplies in time of war. The coming of the aeroplane has completely changed the whole position of this country. We have ceased to be an island, and we are liable to attack. No fleet of ours can stave off that attack. No growth of aircraft can directly prevent an attack; it can only save us to some degree by a retaliatory attack on other countries. Therefore, our position to-day is that we have not merely an academic and platonic need

to support public right in the world, but an immediate personal, selfish and direct need, because it is only through the support of public right that we can hope to survive in the future. We cannot by our own might alone, however much we spend. We are spending £60,000,000 more this year than last year on armaments, but if we were to spend not £60,000,000 but £600,000,000 for the next five years, we could not defend the shores of this country against the attack of the forces of other nations gathered together against us.
The situation has entirely changed from the days gone by. If we are to preserve our own existence in the future we must be parties to a policy of public right, and we must play our part in that policy. If we fail to support other countries when they are attacked by an aggressor we shall not be able to complain if other countries fail to support us when our time comes. I know that the Government protest that they have carried out that policy. I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman from personal knowledge how this matter is regarded in foreign countries. The illustration I shall give is, perhaps, only a trivial one, but it is a straw which shows the way the wind is blowing. I have staying with me at the present time an Eygptian boy who is 12 years of age, and the first time he got me alone he said: "There is one question I have been wanting to ask you: Is Britain really afraid of Italy?" I gave the best explanation I could, and he said to me: "Did not the British Government really break faith with the Emperor of Abyssinia?" Now, a little boy of 12 years of age does not make such statements out of his own head; they must be expressions which he heard every day from the people with whom he came into contact. They are asking: "Is Britain really afraid of Italy, and did not the British Government break faith with the Emperor of Abyssinia?" A little while ago I saw a friend who spends a great part of his time in Central Europe, and he said: "I have never before come back to this country with so much shame. Everybody with whom I have come into contact despises the British nation for its failure to play its part in the Abyssinian question." I know that the right hon. Gentleman said we had done our best, we had tried, but it had not


quite come off; but let me contrast what actually happened with the very strong words used by the previous Foreign Secretary, who said:
The ideas enshrined in the Covenant have become a part of our national conscience. … My country stands for the collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady and collective resistance to all acts of aggression.
I do not wish to rub that in too much, because I believe the right hon. Gentleman would have gone further than some of his colleagues who, for reasons to which I have already referred, held him back by the coat tails. But the facts are that the promise which was held out to the people of this country, to the people of Abyssinia, and to the world that collective action had entered into the conscience of our people and that we would uphold the Covenant in its entirety, although the right hon. Gentleman may say it was fulfilled in the letter, was certainly not fulfilled in the spirit. If the time comes when we find a similar failure of other countries to act on our behalf, I do not think the people who fail us will come in for very much of our good will and esteem.
Let us be clear. I—and I believe my party as a whole—do not suggest that this country should fill the role of a peripatetic Don Quixote, and interfere wherever some trouble exists, or where-ever we think it exists, in every part of the civilised world. There is, of course, a certain amount of truth in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that every nation will not fight for each nation. Each case has to be considered on its merits, and we have to know how far each country can take action, and what that action ought to be. But there never can be a clearer case than that of Abyssinia, there never can be a case in which it is more possible for us to act, and there never can be a case in which the ultimate failure and ignominy of what we did can be more plain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ought we to have gone to war?"] That question was asked me from the Front Bench opposite in a previous Debate, and I gave a categoric answer. My point is that, although it is true that there are limits to what can be done, it is essential that the Government should let it be known throughout the world what are our principles in

this matter. The world as a whole is entitled to know that. If the Government tell us that their policy is somewhere between the extreme limits, between the conceivable view of one side and the conceivable view of the other, they are not telling us anything that will be of practical use to us or to any country. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that other countries have to shape their policy on what they understand our policy to be, and if they do not understand our principles, how can their policy be based in their own interests or in the interests of this country?
Hon. Members opposite sometimes talk as though some of us on this side were, in fact, the real warmongers. That is not in the least the case. In many respects we would go further than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in trying to arrive at a peaceful solution of problems. All the ideas which are being put forward from the benches opposite of economic nationalism and a ringed fence round the Empire for economic purposes have provoked an immense amount of hostility, and we have been against them from the beginning. We are far more willing than hon. Gentlemen opposite to try to make an accommodation on peaceful lines. But having said that, we do believe that in the maintenance of public right, and in that alone, is there any hope for the future of the world. It is because we are opposed to the policy of the Government as it has been shown in the past, because we have no trust in the policy which the Government profess to have to-day, and because the Government refuse to give any indication of the principles on which they act, that we cannot support them in this matter. We intend to make it perfectly clear that our opposition is both to the foreign policy of the Government and to rearmament, which unless it be directed by a sound foreign policy is something to which we cannot possibly agree. For that reason, as has already been explained in the Press, we shall vote against rearmament in the Division Lobby to-night.
At the close of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to hon. Members on this side. He said: "Do you not think that, after all, you are creating a false impression abroad? It may be that we who sit on the Government Benches understand that this is a constitutional procedure, but do not forget


that there are people watching these Divisions besides ourselves—there are people in foreign nations—and they will misunderstand your action." I venture to put two things to hon. Gentlemen opposite. First of all, I would say to the Foreign Secretary that there are actions taken by hon. Members on his own side—hon. Members to whom reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland—which are far more embarrassing to the Government than any vote which the Opposition may give in the Division Lobby, and I should have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman had used some of his eloquence in castigating his own supporters for the action they take in making it more difficult for him to pursue the policy which he would like to pursue.
But a right hon. Gentleman who is not present to-day, yet who is much nearer to the Foreign Secretary than the supporters to whom I have referred, is the most serious culprit. Our policy is perfectly clear. In our published manifesto we have stated:
A vote against an Estimate is not a vote for the abolition of the Service concerned, but is a vote in opposition to the policy of which the Estimate is the expression. Labour does not advocate unilateral disarmament. On the contrary it has definitely declared its willingness to provide such defence forces as are required for this country to do its part in a system of collective security through the League of Nations.
That is perfectly clear to any foreign reader, and it would not be subject to misunderstanding but for the one fact that it has been the persistent policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite to misrepresent the policy of the Labour party. The most gross misrepresentation is that which occurred—if the speech is correctly reported—in the speech of the Home Secretary during the week-end. He said:
The rearmament of other countries passes them"—
that is, the Labour party—
by. They disregard it, and utter no protest against it.
That is quite untrue, of course.
They reserve their censure for the policy of their own country, and if they could translate their vote into action, they would leave us defenceless whatever other people did.
It is that sort of thing which may mislead foreign nations as to what is the

attitude of the Labour party. Our policy is perfectly clear. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said that he has not any difficulty in understanding it. It is a perfectly constitutional action to vote against the Estimates; it is an action which parties in this House have frequently taken. The party opposite voted against all sorts of things during the time they were in Opposition. They voted against education and the police forces of the country, but they did not do that because they did not want education or because they proposed there should be no police. They voted against the handling of education and the police in the way in which the Government of the day were handling them. It was perfectly constitutional and normal for them to vote in that way, because if their vote had been successful it would have meant the turning out of the Government and they would have had control of those services and would have been able to carry out the policy they wished.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that last week the Labour party definitely voted against every one of the Supplementary Estimates for the Defence Services? Are we to interpret that as meaning that they desire Defence Services?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It was that point to which I was addressing myself. I was explaining the reasons we voted against the Supplementary Estimates last week and intend to vote against the Estimates to-night. We are opposed to the policy which underlies them. It does not greatly matter to us that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary chooses to misrepresent us; and it is certainly of no importance to me. I have taken part in a great number of political movements throughout my life and have been constantly and continuously misrepresented both as to my action and that of my friends. We are used to misrepresentation, and it runs off us as water off a duck's back. But what does matter, as I think the Foreign Secretary will agree, is the creation of a wrong impression in foreign countries and if a wrong impression is created, he must blame the Home Secretary and not this party who are taking a perfectly constitutional and understandable action. We are responsible


for our own actions and for the explanations which we give, but the right hon. Gentleman and his Government are responsible for the misrepresentations of his right hon. Friend and the harm which they may do in foreign countries.
The right hon. Gentleman appealed to us to trust the Government. He appealed to us to trust rearmament in their hands and to trust in their foreign policy, though he will not tell us what that policy is. It is somewhere between the two extremes which he indicated. He appeals to us for unquestioning trust and asks us not to divide the councils of the nation at this critical time. He forgets that his Government appealed for and secured the support of this party 12 months ago with regard to collective security. We and the country gave them trust and confidence on that occasion, and we know what happened. It is too late for the right hon. Gentleman to come to us to-day, when that trust has been betrayed, and ask for a renewal of it. In our opinion the Government cannot be trusted. We do not trust their foreign policy and we will not entrust this enormous rearmament programme to their hands. Rearmament, in so far as it may be necessary at all, must be handled in the right way. The Government have shown that they cannot be trusted so to handle it. We refuse, therefore, to give them our confidence afresh. Nor will misrepresentations by the Home Secretary and other Members of the Government deter us from making in the recognised constitutional method the strongest possible attack upon their policy.

6.49 p.m.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Two things must, I think, have occurred to every Member who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). One is summed up in the French proverb:
"Qui s'excuse s'accuse."
So lengthy, so laboured and so inconclusive a defence of the attitude which the hon. Gentleman and his friends declare their intention of taking up in regard to the defensive services, does, I venture to think, carry its own condemnation with it. As always in a Parliamentary system, it is the tendency of debate in this House to exaggerate

differences. That is not my purpose to-day. I would rather seek to find the greatest measure of agreement that is possible. I put this point to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. I understood him to say, for himself and his friends, that they desired this country to be in a position to protect itself and also that they desired this country to be in a position to play the part that such a country ought to play in the collective system of the League of Nations. Very well. There is no contradiction between those two purposes. We are agreed about that. To provide for your own defence is not to be false to the collective system. What would be false to the collective system would be to neglect your own defence in the hope that others will fight your battles, and shed their blood and spend their money while you have your defence on the cheap.
Very well then. The two things are not incompatible. I go one step further and I ask: For our own defence in whatever there is, put it as high as you like, of a collective system at this time in Europe, is any step taken by our Government exaggerated or premature? For our own defence we need all that they are doing, and if we are to play the part which the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to play in the collective system of the League of Nations, we need not only all that the Government are proposing but more than they have yet submitted to this House. With what face can the hon. Gentleman and his friends say, "We are prepared to place this country in a position to give help to other countries who are attacked by aggressors, but we will not vote for the armaments which are the least that are necessary for, and perhaps too little for, even half that policy"? The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say, as he has said, that he will not vote for the salary of the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister because he has no confidence in either one or the other. But suppose his Government came into office next year on the outbreak of a crisis. Would he be in a better position to pursue his policy if the Supplementary Estimates were withdrawn and the original Estimates reduced or rejected, as he is going to try to have them reduced or rejected in the course of the next couple of nights?
What it comes to is this. Sooner than help the Government to defend this country, sooner than put the Government in


a position to take the steps which he wants them to take in respect of the League—sooner than do either of those things for a Government, from which he is separated by party differences, he would let our country go undefended and leave us impotent in the face of the present situation. Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) complained of a lack of clarity in the declarations of the Government. I confess that having listened attentively, indeed with strained attention, to them in an endeavour to disentangle their thoughts from their words, I found an equal lack of clarity in the declarations of both. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland the same question which I have put to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. Does he think that the preparations made by the Government are excessive for our own defence in the present state of Europe?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I did not deal with that matter in the course of my speech.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is why I am putting the question to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman is apparently in ignorance of the fact that we voted for the Estimates for Defence when they came before the House.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I presume that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to continue to vote for the military, naval and Air Force estimates. He does not hold that they are excessive for the purposes which he shares with the Government. How grateful he must be for the major part of the support which he is going to get in the Lobby when he carries his Amendment to a Division?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman has just pointed out that in his opinion it is wrong to vote against the Defence Estimates, but that it is quite understandable that one should vote against the Estimates of the Foreign Secretary. We are going to pursue exactly the same course as that which he has recommended to the Opposition.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me make clear the point at which I have arrived. The right hon. Gentleman is going to

take the same course but for entirely different reasons. The right hon. Gentleman is going to support the Defence Estimates, and measures for the strengthening of our Defence Forces. He wants to challenge foreign policy and foreign policy only. I appeal to those who listened to his speech—and I wish they had been more—to say whether they got any clear idea from his speech as to what it was he objected to in the Government's policy? Perhaps one might say that he objected to everything in it, but what is the policy which he wants to substitute? His speech was full of brave words, but he carefully guarded himself as regards fulfilment of the Covenant in the letter and the spirit in every case. Then the Covenant is not to be the test. It is to be the interpretation in the letter of the four Locarno Powers to the fifth. That is a very different thing. When the right hon. Gentleman is attacking the Government, it is the highest doctrine of the League which he preaches, but when he is thinking of what he would do, if he were once again a member of the Government, as he was at the time of Manchukuo, he puts in a qualifying sentence which the Government have as much right to use as he has—a qualifying sentence indicating limitation and restriction on his generalities which it is wise of him to put in, even though he is speaking in Opposition and which it is wise of the Government, who are responsible for the fate of the country, to observe.
Let me diverge for a moment to say how glad I was that, in a world situation so full of anxiety and trouble, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was able to open his speech with some reassuring news. I do not wholly like the Straits Convention, but I am not for a moment going to criticise the Government for having made it, and I rejoice that the question has been peacefully settled with good will on all sides. I rejoice that one stage of the Egyptian negotiations has terminated in an agreement between the Egyptian Government and our representatives, and I hope that those negotiations will be as successful to the end. It is a great thing to get any of these many troubles wiped off the slate, and to get a little ease and rest in some quarter of the world in spite of this almost universal anxiety. There are dark clouds over Europe. The three Locarno Powers


who met in London have just issued a renewed invitation to Germany and Italy to participate.
But first I want to say a word about Abyssinia. I am glad that sanctions having been terminated, rightly, as I think, and as the League thought, the time has come when the Government can announce that the special assurances that were given in connection with those sanctions can also be terminated. I venture to urge the Government very strongly not to yield to the pressure of the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to keep the Abyssinian question open as a rankling wound for as long as possible, but to close it as soon as possible. We have done our best. We have gone as far as any other Power was prepared to go, and further than any other Power probably would have gone if our Government had not led. We have failed. The collective system has been insufficient either to preserve the peace or to prevent the aggression being successful in this case. It would do no good to keep that wound open. Hon. Gentlemen admit the failure; the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland himself does not suppose that he can restore the situation. There is no Abyssinian Government. If the Italians left Abyssinia to-morrow, I will undertake to say that if the Emperor went back, he would need the help of some Power to seat him again on his throne, and to suggest that the tribes which are still fighting, with no recognised Government, should be supplied with arms which they are quite as likely to use in raiding our territory as in fighting the Italians, seems to me—if I may use a phrase which has a familiar, even a family sound—the height of midsummer madness. I hope that the Government will neither encourage nor permit the import of arms through British territory into Abyssinia. They will not restore the independence of Abyssinia and are much more likely to be a danger to those who have contiguous frontiers, like ourselves. I hope that the Government will do away with what remains of difference, friction and danger arising out of the Abyssinia question as quickly as they can now that it is recognised on all hands that you cannot carry that matter to any successful conclusion.

Mr. A. BEVAN: How will you close the rankling wound? By recognising Italy?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: By recognising the situation which exists—

Mr. BEVAN: That is all we want—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: —instead of pretending that it does not exist. A little reality accompanying our ideals would be a very healthy element in our politics. That brings me to what I was going to say. When we consider the League we must remember that the Covenant of the League was drawn up and signed by the same people and at the same time as the Treaties of Peace were drawn up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will permit me to observe, in passing that though I shall never be one to belittle the great part which he took in the successful conduct of the War, though I think that among laymen, meaning civilians not in the armed Forces of the Crown, he played a greater part than any living man, yet I must beg him to remember that he took a part also in framing the Treaties of Peace, and that just as he can claim a large measure of credit for the successful conduct of the War, so he must assume a large measure of responsibility for the Treaties of Peace.
Hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite may denounce the Treaties of Peace broadly, generally and without exception. There is a great deal in the Treaties of Peace which is unworkable, which it was foolish to put in, but I venture to think that the wisest part of the Treaties, the least attackable part, is the territorial frontiers that were drawn, and those who criticise them, except for minor adjustments which it might be desirable to make, will find it difficult, if not impossible, to draw fairer boundaries. The Treaties are recognised to be imperfect. But the same people who drew the treaties drew the Covenant at the same time and in the same conditions. Why should you suppose that they were inspired word by word, phrase by phrase, article by article, in drawing up the Covenant when you never cease to complain what fools they were or what knaves they were in drawing up at the same time the Peace Treaties of which the Covenant forms part? They drew up the Covenant fresh from the experience of the War. They drew it up with the expectation that in a short time all the great Powers of


of the world would be members of the League, and that from the very beginning the United States would be a member. It would be a miracle if when the United States never joined, the League could work exactly as its founders intended, and it would require, not one but many miracles, with Germany and Japan out, three of the great Powers, including the United States.
The problem now before us is how to relate our ideals to the realities of the moment, and it is because we have lost sight of realities in our pursuit of the ideal that the League has had so great a shock. Unless you can bring it back into a proper relation with reality, it will not recover from that shock, and when tested again will fail still further. What is the broad fact which emerges about British opinion from this Debate? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary alluded to the speech which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made in the last Debate but one which we had on foreign affairs. The right hon. Gentleman had said about the middle of his speech that one thing was certain: That no one in this country would fight again in an Austrian quarrel.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that my word was "war."

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to have a dispute about words.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is very important.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: This is important from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. He said:
Whatever Government is in power they will never go to war again for an Austrian quarrel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1936; col. 1228, Vol. 313.]
As the Foreign Secretary has already pointed out, they did not go to war in 1914 for an Austrian quarrel. If it had been merely an Austrian quarrel this country would not have gone to war. We went to war because France and Belgium were invaded. To Belgium we had given a guarantee, and the independence and integrity of France were necessary for our own safety. The right hon. Gentleman said that no Government in this country would ever go to war again in an Austrian quarrel, but earlier in his speech he had accepted a challenge. The right

hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) had immediately preceded him, and the last few sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's speech had been interrupted. He was saying:
There must be no place for this trembling, vacillating, cowardly Government, which is leading people backward instead of forward, and we must have a Government that sincerely believes in the possibility of an effective League of Nations, that is prepared to put that principle to the test—[HON. MEMBERS: 'How? By war?'].
The right hon. Member for Wakefield did not answer. He continued. Then came the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs who said:
I have no hesitation in answering the questions which have been put from the other side of the Committee. Unless it means that (that is war) in the ultimate resort, the League will have no authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June; col. 1223, Vol. 313.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman think those two sentences very consistent? Do they give to all Europe that clear idea of the League for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking? They seem to lack clarity of thought, which it is very desirable we should have in these great matters. There was a phrase of the right hon. Gentleman for Caithness and Sutherland which seemed to me to be open to similar criticism. He wants a League which will be strong enough by its collective force to deter anyone from going to war. A little later he denounces power politics. What is his policy? What is League policy but a power policy. The whole question is: Can you get sufficient power and put it on the right side? This is claptrap, unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. It is mere claptrap to pretend that there is a distinction between power policy and using a policy of power for the League. The whole question is, Can you get enough power marshalled by the League either to prevent the carrying out of aggression or to refuse the aggressor success if he does break through?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to my alleged use of claptrap, perhaps he will be good enough to give me the opportunity of explaining the perfectly clear distinction between power politics and putting power behind the League. When we talk about nations resorting to power politics, we mean that their policy is guided by the


supreme necessity of having at their command, both on their own part and on the part of their allies, sufficient power to defeat a probable enemy, and Lord Grey pointed out in a book of his that in the effort to do that before the War at a certain stage in our relations with France, when he thought France had put herself in the wrong, he began to feel that the control of foreign policy had begun to pass out of our hands, because it was essential for our purposes that France should be strong enough to assist us in the war that we feared against Germany. The opposite conception is quite different. It is that you place behind the League of Nations and the rule of law sufficient power, not to defeat any other particular Power, but to assert the rule of law against any Power in the world whatsoever, not encircling a Power which you fear, but asserting the rule of law which will give protection to all Powers.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not really carry the matter much further. The phrase "power politics" is one that is used from platform to platform and that appears in resolution after resolution. The body to which the right hon. Gentleman and I both belonged, and of which I have now ceased to be a member, holds that the League without power is no use. You talk of power politics having the effect of an alliance, but what is the League? It is an alliance of all Powers against any Power that aggresses.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: And into which all other Powers may enter.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is quite true. Take the Franco-Soviet Pact. What is that? Power politics? Is it not an encircling engagement supported by power politics? But why is not Germany a member of it? Because she refused to join it. What about Locarno? Locarno was a mutual guarantee; why is it not a guarantee for Germany now? Because she has denounced it and withdrawn. The distinction made by the right hon. Gentleman is doubly misleading when it is used in connection with armaments, because you must have your armaments and your defence, whether you are pursuing a policy of alliances, or a policy of isolation, or a League policy. That is one of the reasons why the questionnaire, for which, I think, the

right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility, was so misleading. It put the issues falsely to the country, and that is why the answers misled many people here at home and more people abroad. That is the basis of the charges which are made against this country. It is there that you find the charge of England being afraid and so on. It is because of answers given by men and women the meaning of which they had not thought out and the meaning of which had not been explained to them, and when they were faced with concrete facts, they were not prepared to do what was necessary to fulfil the vote which they had given.
I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the right hon. Member for Carnarvon and myself. I cannot reconcile the right hon. Member for Carnarvon with himself, but I do not think there is much difference between him and me, and I am not sure that there is a great deal of difference between the right hon. Member for Caithness and me. We three have it in common that it is hopeless to expect every country to go to war in every quarrel. Very well. We are agreed that there are certain cases or that there is a case in which we must go to war. There is the case of our own defence, including in that certainly the defence of the whole Empire. I make no distinction between defending this island and defending any part of the British Empire. There is our own defence, and there is also the defence of the independence of the Low Countries, Belgium and Holland, and of France. Their independence is absolutely bound up with the independence and integrity of our own land. We cannot maintain it if France is conquered or diminished. Those are cases in which I believe every person in this House would be prepared, after using every reasonable effort to prevent war, to take up any challenge which might be thrown down and to fight again to a finish as we fought before.
I agree that to say that we will fight only in those cases, would be to license war everywhere throughout the rest of the world. That is a thing which we have not the right to do, but I think we have, outside these specified limits in which we are prepared to use our whole force, the right to reserve our right of judging each case on its merits and to make our efforts proportionate to our capacity, our interests, and to what


other people are doing, to what those who are the immediate victims are doing, and have prepared for, having regard to the dangers which are involved. I venture to think that one of the great difficulties in these years has been that the Covenant was drawn too tightly. It was partly explained away in the resolution of the Assembly to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, and it was tacitly limited by the Locarno Powers when they pledged themselves to use all their resources in a particular case and did not take the same pledge in every other case, and unless you can get down to the reorganisation of the League, on the basis of realities and on a local body of resistance that is immediately effective, and which the generality of the League can support, I think you will always find that the League will break down in the future as it has broken down in the case of Abyssinia.
I want to call attention to one other subject. The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland linked Articles 10, 11 and 16 together as Articles which were not to be weakened in any way and which could only be touched to be strengthened. I wondered whether he was going to suggest Article 19. Article 19 appeared later in his speech as an essential Article of the Covenant, as the peaceful method of solution of problems arising out of treaties having become inapplicable or unsuited to the circumstances of the case. I want to put to him and to the Government a problem which is very much exercising my own mind. The Government more than once said that any solution of the Abyssinian question must be acceptable to Abyssina, to Italy and to the League. In terms of Article 10, that is true. At least, it is true that it must be acceptable to Abyssinia. If Article 10 is to be literally interpreted, if we have given and are bound to uphold a pledge to every country that its independence and integrity are guaranteed for all time, how do you expect any country to make a concession under Article 19?
Supposing that Italy at a certain stage of the struggle had indicated her willingness to make peace with Abyssinia on terms which the League thought satisfactory, or reasonable, or which at any rate the League would approve, why should Abyssinia have accepted those terms if Article 10 gave her an absolute guarantee

that, whether she accepted or refused, the sanctions would be continued and, if necessary, strengthened? There is an inherent contradiction between Article 10 and Article 19 which, in any revision of the League, ought to be faced. I submit that the guarantee or what would be the guarantee under Article 10 ought to be subject to acceptance of any advice tendered under Article 19, and that other members of the League cannot be held bound to continue to support a belligerent if that belligerent refuses to accept a settlement which in all the circumstances of the case they think equitable or the best that can be obtained. I put this to the Government, because I do not think the contradiction between Article 10 and Article 19 has been brought out in this House before.
Now I come to what is, after all, the real question, the first question which I think must be decided before we can settle exactly what the reform of the League is to be. Who are going to be in it? Above all, what great Powers are going to be in? Is it going to include Germany? In what mood is Germany coming to this Conference? I confess that I have watched the course of events with growing anxiety, not for months only, but for the last few years. I am one of the pre-war generation, and I watched, as some of us did, the anxious course of events in the years preceding the outbreak of the War. I saw in Germany the most mighty military power on the Continent dominating Central Europe, reaching down with her influence into the Balkans, down to the Black Sea, to the Adriatic and to the Mediterranean. I saw Germany arming and arming, I saw her time and again rattling the sabre and issuing practical ultimatums or preferring to carry her way by threats of force rather than by negotiations. I saw her, after refusing the overtures, in which my father had a large share, for an agreement, or it might even be an alliance, with this country, carry on negotiations the only purpose of which, as we now know from the German documents, was to reassure us and to keep us quiet until she should be ready.
I saw agreement after agreement made with Germany. Each was to settle the last outstanding difficulty, each was to bring peace, but each was only a stepping off place for a new demand. We made one agreement with France in 1903 which


covered all outstanding points of difference between our two countries—Newfoundland fisheries, the West Coast of Africa, Egypt, Morocco, and Siam. We had been on the very edge of war with France, not merely over the West Coast of Africa, or Siam, but over Fashoda, and we should have been at war but for her preoccupations elsewhere at the time. All these questions were dealt with in a spirit of give and take. We settled them, and never since then has France raised any difficulty about any of these points. We paid a price in order that we might have done with these difficulties and have peace and friendship between our two nations. We have received what we have paid for. We have had agreement after agreement with Germany. We have paid our price, but we did not get what we paid for.
I come to these more recent negotiations. The moment chosen by Germany to leave the Disarmament Conference was the moment when the right hon. Gentleman, then our Prime Minister, had gone to Geneva in a real effort to bring the Disarmament Conference to a successful result, and had prepared for it the best scheme that it seemed possible to get at that time, and laid it before the Conference, not without hope of success. At that moment Germany withdrew from the Conference. Then there was the invitation of our Government to Germany to come and discuss a general agreement about armaments which should bind us all and free her from her unilateral disabilities. Germany took that opportunity to announce that she was going to observe those obligations no longer and would settle, not by negotiations, but by a tour de force, the questions which she was asked to discuss. We had the denunciation of the Locarno Treaty and the re-occupation of the Rhineland. I say again that the Locarno Treaty was offered by Germany, the perpetuation of the demilitarisation clauses was offered by her, and the Treaty was freely accepted by every constitutional authority in Germany at the time. It was brushed aside and treated as a scrap of paper, and the demilitarised zone was reoccupied. Then, instead of resisting an act of force with force, but bent on preserving peace if they could, not only our Government, but the other Governments affected, France and Belgium, refrained from any counter action.
My right hon. Friend alluded to-day to the questions which he put to the German Government some time ago. I know no parallel instance of a Government professing a desire for peace and friendly relations with another Government, which has shown such a studied contempt for friendly overtures. It is an ill omen for these new conversations. The further we advance the further Germany recedes. The more we show our willingness to grant, the higher her demands rise. The right hon. Gentleman criticised me for putting my name to a Motion about mandated territories which appears on the Paper of the House. The colonial movement in Germany was confined to a small section and was not favoured by the present Government until quite recent times. Herr Hitler's book, which still circulates unexpurgated in Germany, although English readers have had provided for them a carefully selective edition, treated the colonial ambitions of Imperial Germany as one of the follies in which it had engaged. Why has this demand now become official? The question was raised at Locarno itself. The German delegates were frankly informed that, though as a member of the League they would stand on the same footing as for instance, Italy, which also had no mandates, and be eligible for any new mandates, the territories already mandated were not at the disposal of the League to be given away. I noticed a doubtful phrase in one of the Chancellor's speeches in Germany between the initialling of the Treaty of Locarno and the signature in London; and I repeated my warning so that there should be no misrepresentation.
Now, because we have not maintained the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, because we have used language which seems to hold the door open to surrender, there is a demand for the return of the Mandated Territories or compensation elsewhere. A great many of the Mandated Territories are not ours to return. Are we going to return Tanganyika in face of the protest of the South African Government? My right hon. Friend said to-day that the Government found immense difficulties—moral, political and legal—in the idea of any cession of this kind. Is it not better, above all when you are dealing with a Government with the history of the German Government, to say quite clearly what you mean? I


venture to put it to the Committee and the Government that to encourage vague, elastic, expansive hopes is not the way to make any negotiations a success. The great thing is to know how far you are prepared to go, and to let those with whom you have to deal know that within those limits you will do all you can, but that beyond those limits you will not go.
I venture to say that even now the Government would be wise to say that they are not prepared to consider the return of our Mandated Territories, although we will give the fullest and most sympathetic consideration to any economic difficulties which Germany believes to arise as a result of the fact that she has no colonial possessions. I have had a little experience of negotiations. I have watched foreign policy with a certain amount of inside knowledge ever since I first joined the Cabinet 34 years ago. I have never known negotiations helped by encouraging hopes that cannot be realised, and for my part, not only do I think that we have not the right to part with our Mandated Territories to anyone except the people themselves when they become fit to rule and defend them, but I say that I cannot take upon my shoulders the guilt of putting another human being under a Government which refuses in its own country to its own people the rights of citizenship and makes them serfs.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: With some parts of the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) I agree, and with others I do not. With the part with which he concluded, referring to the Germon Colonies, I find myself in complete agreement, because I have said the same thing myself in this House: that we cannot contemplate handing over to people who treat their own fellow subjects as they do in Germany, any people for whom we have any trusteeship. That is not the way to deal with the demands of Germany, not by handing back or distributing parts of the British Empire. I believe the right way is by giving free access to our own Colonies, by bringing all the Colonies in Africa under the Mandate system, and by introducing some form of international administration into the existing Mandate

areas, so that Germany and others may feel that they are playing their legitimate part in this great work of internation administration. The right hon. Gentleman asked a question regarding the compatibility of Articles 19 and 10 of the Covenant. I should have thought that the possibility of change was really implicit in Article 10, otherwise it would make nonsense. If there is any doubt about it, the change should be made, but I believe that what is necessary is there already.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt with one matter on which I could not agree with him. He referred to the question of introducing an air of reality into our dealings with Abyssinia. Let us do so by all means, but I believe it is a complete illusion to imagine that Italy is firmy seated in Abyssinia. We have been told by Sir Sydney Barton that she occupies only two quite narrow areas of territories there. Large areas are in the hands of the Abyssinians, Gore certainly is, because a government of some kind is functioning there, and I believe that if the Emperor were to go back there he would have no difficulty in rallying to himself the great mass of the population, who would be glad to acknowledge his leadership. I hope His Majesty's Government will not put any obstacle in the way of the return of the Emperor to Abyssinia. It is said, and I believe there is foundation for it, that at the present time they are doing everything they can to obstruct and to prevent the Emperor going back to his own country. That would be the most shameful thing of all, and I hope that we shall have some assurance from the Under-Secretary when he replies to-day that the Government have not interfered and will not interfere with any desire the Emperor may have to go back there. The reality is very different from what the right hon. Gentleman said. I believe the issue is not yet settled in Abyssinia. It may be years before the question which of those two countries is in effective occupation of the whole area is settled, and we certainly ought not to prejudge it.
The Foreign Secretary to-day made a very wide sweep in choosing his subjects, and he dealt with them in his usual attractive manner. He made some important statements, and in particular referred to the withdrawal of the


assurances which had been given in respect of the Mediterranean to certain Powers there. That was a very important statement, which is going to have reactions. It is intended that it should have reactions in Italy. After all, those assurances were made, as he told me at Question Time one day, under the Covenant of the League of Nations, and it was merely the technical step taken to carry out the Covenant. Although those assurances may have been withdrawn, we are still bound by our obligations under the Covenant to go to the assistance of those countries if they are attacked by an aggressor. The Foreign Secretary, towards the conclusion of his speech, read a certain number of extracts from speeches made at the last meeting of the Assembly supporting the view that sanctions ought to be abandoned. Of course it was very easy for him to do that. We, having started the race in running away, could not expect other countries on their own to get up and openly to oppose us. They joined in the general sauve qui peut which took place, and the right hon. Gentleman can find no satisfaction or defence in those speeches made after the decision was taken.
The remark made by the Foreign Secretary which really showed the difference between the two sides in this House was this: When he was describing the purpose for which we require our armaments, and trying to get, so far as he could, agreement between the two sides, he said, "Our forces are required for home defence, and they may be used to help the victim of aggression." That is the whole point, that they "may" be used; they may or may not. The only word for them which would give any satisfaction to those who believe in the collective system of the League is that they "will" be used. Only the certain knowledge throughout the whole world that our forces will certainly be used every time against an aggressor can prevent war.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Every time?

Mr. MANDER: Certainly.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That was not the policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MANDER: Naturally you would have to use the appropriate sanction, and

I do not say that the right sanction for us to use in South America is a military sanction. You would have in the first place to use your economic and financial sanction, certainly in Europe. It must be known that just as we would use our forces in any attack on the British Empire in any part of the world, so we would use them to resist any attack on any League member in any part of the world. If that were known, and other countries did the same thing, the idea of any war occurring again in the world could be completely ruled out. But the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman still leaves it open for countries all over the world to say: "Will they be used in our case?" There is uncertainty, and after the betrayal of Abyssinia, to whom we broke our pledged word under Article 10 of the Covenant, it is perfectly clear that our forces cannot be relied on to back up the collective system. That is the quarrel that we on this side have with the Government. Judging by the policy they have carried out we cannot trust them to use for the collective system the forces which are being voted. The Foreign Secretary can only say that they may be used for that purpose, but is not prepared to say that they will be.
Two Conferences have been held recently to which reference has been made, and I should like to say a word about the Montreux Conference. It is true that it has set an excellent example to Germany of the way in which a peaceful change should be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a particular solution which was adopted, under which access was to be given to any country which had an agreement under the League to which Turkey was a party, but he did not refer to the fact that that proposal was opposed by the British Government until they finally had to give way. The way the British Government acted throughout that Conference is open to very much criticism. My impression of what happened is that our Government first of all said they were in general agreement with the Turkish plan and the Soviet plan; then, being informed by Germany that she had certain objections, they turned right round and opposed the plan; and finally, when they were told by the Russian Government that unless they changed their attitude the Russian Government would leave the Conference, they changed once again and joined in


the final agreement which was reached. We have there another example of the uncertain and vacillating policy of the British Government, which changed twice during the Montreux Conference according to which country happened to be putting pressure on it at the time.
With regard to the Five-Power Conference, we all agree that it is a very good thing to get those Powers together. We hope it will be the beginning of a final settlement. It will be a remarkable achievement indeed if it does lead to anything of the kind, in view of the immense difficulties of the situation. It would clear out of the way a lot of difficulties in the past, and we do not want to go into them too much, but we must remember this in the present situation. Some months ago, after the Rhineland occupation, it was a question of how far different countries could trust the word of Germany in any future undertaking she might enter into. Now it is a question of how far our word can be trusted, in view of the way we went back on it in the case of Abyssinia. There are many Powers in the world which are feeling, as we felt about Germany, that it is not possible to rely on the word of the British Government to carry out any obligation it may undertake. The Government adopted their policy of running away from their obligations with, no doubt, a specific object in view. They wanted to re-form the Stresa front, and get Italy back into co-operation in Europe. I hope they now realise that running away has not even paid. Abyssinia was sacrificed for nothing. Italy has not come in. Italy is putting up her price, she thinks she has got us on the run, and it would have been much better and more dignified to have stuck to the obligation that we had.
But when this conference comes about there is only one question that really matters, and that is that we want to get in those States which will co-operate loyally in assisting to preserve world order through the collective system. It is a question which can be asked of other States, and it is a question which can be asked of us, because, as I have been saying, it is not known how far we can be relied on to do so. I hope it will be definitely agreed that no settlement in the West only, leaving the East open for attack, could be regarded as satisfactory for a single moment. I hope it will be

possible to bring into the agreement all the great Powers and as many other Powers in the League as possible; but, if we cannot, then we must go as far as we can. We must get those who will loyally and willingly co-operate in the collective system. At present the number is very small—Great Britain, France and Belgium, with a definite binding Staff arrangement of a collective kind such as I should like to see developed on a very wide scale; because unless there are Staff arrangements ready to be put into force automatically, and agreed on beforehand, it is of very little use. We ought to extend those Staff conversations—if possible to Germany, by all means, and certainly to Russia. We should then get the northern Scandinavian States, Holland, Turkey, and no doubt others if it were going to be a really genuine working thing.
If under the conditions of a freely negotiated world plan for peace of this character, any country stood out and complained of encirclement, I say that it would be rightly encircled. Any country which refused to come into this system we are now going to work out at this Conference ought to be encircled. It must be encircled for the safety of the peace of the world, and it has no right whatever to complain, or to say that we are doing it because we do not like the particular country or the way in which it rules itself. It has been rightly said that to preserve the status quo is not enough, and that some machinery must be devised for making Article 19 of the Covenant function. There must be some method of peaceful change. The countries that take part in this conference will all have to accept the idea of third-party judgment in any dispute that may arise among them. We ought to try to set up something in the nature of a tribunal in equity, that could deal with non-justiciable disputes in the same way as the Permanent Court of International Justice now deals with justiciable disputes. That arises out of the practice of this and other countries, and any dispute, having been so decided, ought to be given the force of law and maintained by the League, just as judicial decisions are arrived at in this country.
It was the most disappointing part of the speech of the Foreign Secretary, and extremely unsatisfactory, and it will be so felt in the country as a whole, that


he was unable to give any indication of the policy of the Government towards reform of the League. It is a monstrous situation that the House of Commons is to adjourn for three months, during which important conference decisions are to be made, and that we are not to be told what the policy of the British Government is. I dare say the reason is that they are not clear in their own minds what the policy is going to be. If that is so, we have the right to press them very strongly. Whether their decision satisfies hon. Members of the extreme right, the extreme left or the middle, is not the point; the country is entitled to know what policy the Government will put forward at Geneva. I thought that the excuse he gave that, after all, this was a matter for the League and that it would be out of place for us to talk about it, was singularly ineffective. It did not deter him, in the case of the abandonment of sanctions to Italy, from getting up here, before it has been discussed at Geneva, and giving a lead to the whole world for the retreat, a lead which had to be followed. His getting up here and stating his view pre-judged the whole thing. I disagree with the view he stated, but I think he was right in stating his view.
That was an admirable precedent for getting up and stating the policy of the Government in this matter. The people of this country and of the whole world are interested to know what it is. I would stress the point that a League which did not possess Articles 10, 16 and 19 would be an instrument of no use at all in maintaining peace and order in the world. There is only one alternative to a League of that kind, and that is force; not only the rule of force but the rule of gangster force; force, not in the hands of a world authority, but in the hands of States and dictators who run riot and take whatever they want.
I would like to refer to one or two examples, and, first, to the case of Danzig, mentioned by the Foreign Secretary. I happened to be in Danzig last September, on the occasion of the famous reception that was given by the High Commissioner, when the German battleship was visiting the city. The High Commissioner had, naturally, invited all the leading representatives in Danzig to be present. When the Nazis found out

that the leaders of the Opposition were present at the reception they immediately gave orders that everyone with whom they were concerned was to march out at once, and they all turned round and marched out. That was a very good example of Nazi manners and mentality. The same thing has occurred again quite recently. Everything that the Foreign Secretary said with regard to Mr. Lester was true. He has carried out his duties with great distinction and great acceptability. Everybody, whether they agreed with him or not, personally praised him, and thought that he had done his best to carry out his duties impartially. The new decrees and new laws which have been put into force by the Nazi Government in the last few days appear completely to have destroyed the League Constitution that exists at Danzig at the present time. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will soon be in a position to deal with that matter, and that the League will take some form of action.
The League cannot do it unless it is an effective League. That is the whole point. Mr. Lester himself has actually about three clerks. That is his staff. Really, he has behind him, in addition to those three clerks—or he ought to have—potentially the whole force of every member of the League of Nations. If that were realised by the authorities in Danzig, it would relieve the situation. Not only will Memel be taken in due course, but the Polish corridor and Gdynia. All these things are bound to follow in their order, unless you make a success of the collective system.
May I now say a word about the Austro-German agreement. Anything that postpones strife, for even a short time, is to be welcomed, but I am afraid that it is only postponing trouble in that area. I am afraid it means that Germany realises that she cannot get Austria at the present time without coming up against the military forces of Italy, and that therefore the Germans are turning their eyes in other directions; I rather think towards the Northeast.
We were all pleased that the Austrian Government have felt able, during the last week or two, to release a large number of prisoners, both of the right and of the left. It would be wise and helpful to those who desire to assist Austria and any democratic country, if they could go


still further and release, as perhaps they intend, not only those who have been in prison but who have been detained by administrative procedure by the police, and of whom there are many thousands. I believe the result would be of a very happy nature and would influence the feelings of many people, at any rate in this country, towards the Austrian Government. If we are expected to carry out our obligations towards Austria, we are entitled to say to her, in a friendly way: "Is your Government representative? Does it contain all the main elements of the country?" I am afraid that a very satisfactory answer to that question could not be given at the present time. If it were possible to bring into the Austrian Government some of the democratic elements, I believe that would go a long way towards strengthening their position in the world. One cannot help feeling that another country which is threatened, if we do not make a success of the League, is that excellent, democratic, new country, Czechslovakia. It is a very dangerous position, and only a strong League can save it.
It has been recently said that war is inevitable. I noticed that one of the Ministers, the other day, criticised that remark. War is inevitable if the policy of the present Government is maintained unchanged, a policy of weakness, irresolution, failing to carry out our obligations, treachery and cowardice. That means certain war in the world, and it means not only war but—and this will be of particular interest to the Secretary of State for War, who is now on the Government Front Bench—it means a divided nation. It is all very well to scoff at the attitude of the Labour party towards recruitment and arming, but the Opposition represent a good many people in the country. If you go into war with the nation divided, you run a great risk, unless there is a clear, definite, collective, League issue appealing to the idealism of the country, of mass opposition, of a refusal to make munitions and a refusal to serve. There are people organising at the present time—I do not happen to agree with them—by the hundred thousand to resist all kinds of military service whatever. That is why I think it is important for the Government to endeavour, even now, to see whether, by consultation between leaders of the parties, they can arrive at some united policy.
War is not inevitable and can be prevented, if the Government go back to the policy on which they won the General Election such a short time ago. Then they had a nation united on their foreign policy, fired by their idealism and willing, I believe, to go all lengths in its defence. If the Government should go back there, they could save the situation. I press upon the Government most earnestly, that, even at this late hour, they should see how far it may be possible, by consulting the leaders of the other parties, to arrive at an agreed programme of Defence and for peace and security. In that way and in that way alone can we take steps which will go a very long way to saving this country and the world.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. A. CHAPMAN: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him into all the ramifications of his arguments. Deeply as I respect his championship of the League, I profoundly disagree with most of what he says. When I tell the Committee that it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak at all on foreign policy, I am sure that he will be prepared to excuse me for not following his lead. I rise to address the Committee only because I am aware that hon. Members are always courteous to a new Member who believes that he has something to say upon which he feels very deeply and sincerely. My object in these few minutes is to draw attention to what I believe is the core of our future problem, the coercive Clauses of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and to provoke discussion. This is a question which is puzzling me, and I hope that by trailing my coat around the Committee I shall get answers to some of the points which I do not understand.
There is the greatest confusion and disquiet in the public mind at the present time as to these coercive Clauses in particular, and to collective security in general. In view of the recent failure, the man-in-the-street says to himself that it has proved neither collective nor secure, and that it has benefited no one but the aggressor. He is bound to know that the situation in Europe is infinitely worse than it was a year ago, and that he is in the midst of collective insecurity. He realises that the coercive Clauses have failed, and not the least of his difficulties


comes, as he realises, there is a difference of opinion among our great Dominions as to the exact future policy that we should follow. I should like to congratulate His Majesty's Government on their intention to review the whole working of the League in the light of the recent experience. I believe that the average non-politically minded citizen in this country agrees with the statement of Mr. de Valera in the Dail on the 18th June:
As far as we are concerned, we are satisfied that the League, as it was, can no longer command the confidence of the ordinary people in the world. It does not command our confidence. Therefore, the League of Nations, unless it is reformed, is not of advantage to us, and I do not think it would be, in its present form, of advantage to humanity in general.
These are very strong words. I wish to make it quite clear that I have the most profound belief that the League ideal must ultimately succeed. I also reflect that war has been a condition in the heart of man ever since Cain slew Abel, and I ask myself, why should we expect to change the heart of man in the brief space of 10 or 20 years? I believe that the ideal for which we are searching will be accomplished in the course of generations, and I cannot see how we can expect to get a drastic change of heart by an immediate application of an international law. One speaker in this House on the Treaty of Peace Bill said that President Wilson had 14 points, but he had forgotten the 15th, namely, human nature, and that, I believe, is the great problem which confronts us. M. Herriot recently declared that, in the matter of the League, Great Britain had become the conscience of Europe. If that be true, then the best friend of the League to-day is he who will cast aside its incantations, who will strip down the cardboard castles behind which we felt we might have security, and who, in the words of the Epistle to the Corinthians, will burn away the wood, hay and stubble and show us the deep foundations. However small they may be, I believe we can build upon them something for the lasting peace of the world.
The battle in September is going to rage round the question of these coercive Clauses. The great Dominions already see this clearly, and yet it is a very important

fact that there appears to be a marked division of opinion. When hon. Gentlemen opposite expect the Foreign Secretary to give a clear statement of the proposals of the British Government next September, I would point out that even in our own Empire there is division of opinion, and that exchange of views has to take place over vast distances. Surely it must be obvious that it is unreasonable to expect my right hon. Friend to put forward a clear and comprehensive policy at this stage. The exchange of views is most important. Although our great Dominions are independent countries, with independent seats on the Council it is of vital importance that we should go to Geneva with something like a united outlook, and I trust that my right hon. Friend is carrying on the most careful negotiations with the Dominions so that we may arrive at a common point of view. This division is to be seen in the utterances of some of our Dominion Statesmen. General Smuts, speaking at Kroonstad in South Africa on the 25th June, after saying how much he approved of General Hertzog's outlook, said:
I still believe that sanctions constitute the most powerful weapon to preserve the peace of the world.
A marked contrast was furnished by the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, who, speaking at Ottawa on the 20th June, visualised the future role of the League as that of conciliation. He said he saw it
as a clearing house for international relations, and an agency for promoting mutual good will and measures of conciliation and disarmament, rather than as an organisation committed to enforce its views and decisions by the exercise of preponderating military or economic power and to guarantee the territorial status of any country.
In another speech, or it may have been the same speech, he declared that:
Successive Canadian Governments had opposed the view of Geneva as 'an international War Office.'
The Prime Minister of Australia has declared very strongly in favour of revision of the League, and an interesting personal point of view—I wish to emphasise that it was personal and unofficial—was expressed by the Attorney-General of Australia, who, when he was speaking in Westminster Hall not very long ago, made this striking statement as a personal contribution:


But I do not believe for one moment that your new Covenant can, in the present state of public opinion in the world, be a Covenant which involves, for example, the making of war on behalf of the Covenant.
That is a very clear statement from a very important oversea statesman. I trust that these differing points of view will be reconciled before September.
I come to the core of my speech, and ask what the coercive Clauses have achieved so far. In the first place, they have kept America from ratifying the Covenant, from ratifying the whole idea of the League. Secondly, they drove Germany out of the League, because I would point out that the coercive Clauses formed a kind of collective guarantee for France. The alteration of the Treaty of Versailles would have been impossible without the consent of France, and had Germany determined by forcible methods to alter that treaty, at once the coercive clauses would have been put into effect. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to say that the coercive clauses have prevented us from granting to Germany that equality which has been such a sore point with her. Then the coercive clauses led the great Powers to buoy up Abyssinia with a hope that could not be fulfilled. I believe, and I think the historian will prove, that His Majesty's Government took the lead on every possible occasion, and that, whatever fault may be found in the future, the finger of accusation will not be pointed at the Government at present in office in regard to this matter of Abyssinia. I believe that to be true. Had I not believed it, I should not have supported the Government in the Division Lobby when this matter was voted upon.
Fourthly, we have been lulled by the coercive clauses into the belief that it was safe to disarm. We believed that over-long, and we are beginning to find the cost. Looking at the other side of the picture, we find that the coercive clauses have accelerated the increase of armaments, because the position in the Mediterranean to-day is not what it was before the application of sanctions; we have had to have increased forces there. I shall not touch in detail upon such matters as the loss of trade which the coercive clauses have brought about, because we would gladly pay any material amount to achieve that world peace which we desire, but that is a factor not to be

overlooked. On the other hand, one may ask, whom have the coercive clauses benefited? The answer is, the aggressor. I was in Italy in July of last year. There was no enthusiasm then for this Abyssinian adventure, but by propaganda, by misrepresenting almost every action taken by this country, the people of Italy have been welded together into a solid whole. The application of the coercive clauses—of sanctions—has intensified the economic nationalism of Italy, and we shall find that trade will suffer as a result.
Why did these coercive Clauses fail? There are four reasons—first, that the Covenant is ahead of the development of the peoples; secondly, that the League lacks universality of membership and outlook; thirdly, that in its present form the League ignores some of the first principles on which it was founded; and, fourthly, that the world is passing through one of those chronic periods of readjustment which crop up in history from time to time. The Prime Minister went to the very root of the problem when he declared in a recent speech that he doubted whether, in their present stage of development, the peoples of Europe would march except in defence of their own frontiers. That is very true, and it is as true of our own people as of any of the Continent. We had evidence of this when in the recent dispute we had the reluctance of a great Power to offend an ally in the matter of sanctions. That reluctance may have caused sanctions to fail. It is quite possible. We had the figures of the exports of Italy to various sanctionist countries, which are a striking evidence of the frailty of human nature. The fact that it was possible for the imports of one sanctionist country from Italy to go up while that country was supposed to be applying sanctions speaks strikingly for itself.
To turn to our own people, at the time of the staff talks with France I made a point of questioning young men of military age. In almost every case I was met with the rejoinder that the young man in question was not prepared to fight to defend French territory. When it was pointed out how much French territory was linked up with our own defence, the attitude was somewhat modified, but if our young men of fighting age are not keen about a thing which so vitally affects them,


is it any good bluffing ourselves that they will willingly go here, there and everywhere to join in every scrap that may be going in the name of collective security?
Turning to the possibilities of the future, if Germany attacks Russia and Russia appeals to the League against the aggressor, do hon. Members sincerely believe that our young men will rush to pull the Soviet chestnuts out of the fire? Yet we should have a clear obligation if the appeal were made. Would any hon. Member opposite have sent a man to fight in Abyssinia to retrieve the possession of that country from the Italians? I do not believe so. Yet this question of man-power is important. If you are going to increase your collective security or coercive clauses, or have international forces, how about the question of man-power? It is no good saying, because the wish is father to the thought, that we shall make our contribution by air or by sea. Everyone knows that in the long run it is the man with the bayonet who has to hold the position and, therefore, the question of man-power is important. Are we to be driven to the point, in view of the difficulty we are having in the matter of recruiting, of saying that conscription is the natural corollary to collective security? I am certain that the development of our people has not yet reached that stage.
If you want further evidence of the lack of faith in the coercive clauses and collective security, look at the tangle of alliances on the Continent. They are opposed to and are not the complement of collective security. These groups of alliances or pacts may cause the very type of war which collective security is designed to stop. I do not believe that the two things can run side by side. I do not believe you can have groups of alliances and collective security at the same time. If you come back to those first principles of which I spoke, you will find the words of President Wilson most striking. He said there could be
No leagues or alliances or special covenants and understandings within the general and common family of the League of Nations.
That is the extent to which we have departed from first principles. I could understand temporary alliances immediately after the War, when France

was nervous, but if there is any faith in collective security and the coercive clauses we ought not even to have to give guarantees in the case of Belgium. I solemnly submit that, until you have reached the stage when nations will forgo their sovereignty to the extent of casting alliances aside and relying entirely on collective security, collective security will not be a reality.
May I now touch upon the second great thing which, to my mind, weakened the League recently, that is its lack of universality in membership and in outlook. President Wilson envisaged the League as universal. We have seen in the matter of economic sanctions how absolutely necessary America was to that line of policy. We have been trying to run before we could walk. It may be even better to forgo some of the coercive clauses and go back along the road a little, to frame a Covenant which the people of Europe can accept unreservedly and which will leave the door sufficiently open for America to be able to subscribe her name. It is of vital importance at this stage in the history of mankind that the two great English-speaking nations should get together and keep together. I believe that, if you could get America to Geneva on non-coercive terms, in the course of time that great country would see the necessity of having some sort of guarantee of force behind the Covenant of the League. I think it worth making great efforts and great sacrifices to try to get America to come in. After all, the Treaty of Peace, which includes the Covenant, was carried by a majority in the American Senate, though it was not a two-thirds majority and, as ex-President Taft indicated at a banquet to the King, then Prince of Wales, in New York, we must be patient with America. He added that the overwhelming opinion of the great mass of people was in favour of some such scheme as the League of Nations. These offer very great hopes, and I trust we shall pursue them and try to get the great English-speaking nations together, because they were envisaged in the first place as the co-guarantors of the League. It was Mr. O'Connor from these benches, during the discussion on the Treaty of Peace Bill, who said he regarded America and the British Empire as the co-guarantors of the League and declared that without America the League of


Nations is a vision and a snare. I do not know how far hon. Members will be prepared to support that view. I feel that one of the fundamental causes of all the weakness that we have experienced in the League in recent years has been due to the fact that America, which conjured up the great idea, was not in it, and we should make great efforts and great sacrifices to get her to come in.
Next in point of universality is the vital necessity to us to have countries like Germany and Japan back in the League. It is going to be very difficult, for the simple reason that a dictator country like Italy, which one might say is nominally a member of the League, has declared that in any revised League the coercive clauses must go. Germany has implied the same thing by her refusal to negotiate until sanctions were lifted. So we have this position. If you desire these two great Powers to be in the League, you have to meet them at some point. Are you prepared to sacrifice your coercive clauses? I think we have to mark time. There is bound to be an interregnum in the history of the League. Time is a factor which is important, because we have to wait to a certain extent for a change of outlook in the dictator countries. It is important that we should all get together, because I believe, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), that ultimately the real genuine sanction of the League is going to be the moral sanction, and that will depend on its universality, and I do not think in the meantime we ought to saddle the League with the responsibility of making war.
I have condemned alliances as being opposed to collective security. I do not believe that we are ready for collective security. These alliances will come out in some form or other in any revised covenant of the League for the reason that nations have not the pluck to throw them aside. It would be far better and far more honest to recognise the fact that the Covenant for future years is to be based upon regional security rather than to go on using the slogan "Collective security," which in a great many cases means little or nothing. We have to settle this great question for the future as to whether the League of Nations is to be a peace bureau or a war office. That is the important thing we have to settle,

and it may be better to have it sneered at as a conference room than to have it cursed in later years as the voting office of Armageddon.
I am afraid that I have kept the Committee longer than I intended, but I conclude with these remarks. There is already one genuine League of Nations, and that is the British Commonwealth of Nations. I see no reason why, in the course of time, the ideals which have inspired us should not inspire foreign countries as well. There is this difference between the two of us. Whereas the British Commonwealth of Nations has a common faith and outlook, which has all the burning zeal of a religious creed, this is lacking in the League of Nations to-day, and until we have that burning zeal we cannot hope to get true collective security. In the meantime it is absolutely vital to keep the British League of Nations intact, and that you should have necessary defences to that end, and that you should try your best to keep the Empire out of war. I say to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the Covenant that the people of this country desire is a covenant which will tend to keep us out of war rather than to rush us into war here, there and everywhere. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has earned the undying gratitude of his fellow countrymen in keeping this nation out of war in the recent dispute, and if, in the days immediately ahead, he can still keep us out of war, that gratitude will increase a thousand times, and not least in the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I thank the Committee for their most courteous attention to a maiden speech.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I feel sure that I shall be expressing the views of every hon. Member in the Committee when I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Chapman) upon a most distinguished maiden speech. All of us derived very great pleasure in listening to him, and we shall anticipate with equal pleasure any future contributions which he may make to our Debates. We are supposed this evening to be endeavouring to clarify our minds with regard to foreign affairs before we depart for the vacation, and to assist us in that endeavour the Foreign Secretary addressed the Committee—I do not complain


at all—at considerable length, touching upon a number of points this afternoon. If I remember aright he spoke upon some eight subjects, ranging from Danzig to Egypt, Spain, Mandated Territories and what not.
It is impossible in the short time I intend to occupy the attention of the Committee to discuss each and every one of those subjects, but I propose to make a passing reference to one or two of them. First of all, I will ask this general question. I said that we were trying to clarify our minds and that the Foreign Secretary has tried to assist us. In what particular can we say that we are better informed as to Government policy now than we were before the Foreign Secretary spoke? In what particular do we know the Government policy in regard to Danzig? Do we know what the Government policy is in regard to Egypt, the reform of the League and Mandated Territories? Is there one of the subjects discussed this afternoon, with the one exception, namely, the Dardanelles, upon which we have really been given definite knowledge? And we need not thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling us anything about the Dardanelles. The only assurance he could give us was as to what is to happen to the Dardanelles in time of peace. In time of war goodness only knows what will happen. I am afraid that the agreement which has been settled will not help us at all in that direction.
I will pass from the question of Danzig and come to the question of Egypt. We are all agreed that there is some cause for rejoicing that some agreement has been arrived at between ourselves and Egypt so far as military clauses are concerned. I was interested in hearing the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) this afternoon upon this matter. How many of us on this side will fail to remember when the occasion exactly six years ago, on the day on which we rose for the holidays, there was a violent attack made on the late Mr. Arthur Henderson by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) upon this very subject of a settlement in Egypt for having laid down precisely the terms of settlement which are now being accepted by the Government with open arms? It is an astonishing thing how the Government from time

to time accept light and learning from people on this side of the House. To-night we are grateful that they have tried to imitate us even though it be six years later.
I turn to another subject which is interesting us all at this particular time, namely the question of Spain. The right hon. Gentleman, I admit, adopted the correct attitude from the diplomatic point of view with regard to Spanish events, and I am not asking the Government to take sides one way or the other; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether he will be good enough to invite his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to enlighten us upon this point. There are rumours abroad that Germany and Italy are facilitating the sending of armaments into Spain to support the rebel forces through Lisbon and Portugal. That is a very serious matter. It is important not merely for us in particular, but for Europe in general. I am sure that we all appreciate that the point at issue in Spain is really whether democracy is to establish itself on a permanent basis in Spain or otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman himself said in his speech this afternoon that Europe has become the battleground between the forces of democracy and liberty on the one hand and the forces of reaction and Fascism on the other hand. We regard this fight in Spain as a matter of vital interest to Europe, and indeed to the world at large. We are, therefore, asking the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary whether he will be so good as to give us an assurance that the Government themselves look upon this matter from an appropriate standpoint from a governmental point of view. It is the authorised government appointed by the people that is being challenged by the Fascists in Spain at this moment, and if we have any sort of comfort to give to anyone in Spain, it should be given to the constitutional authority in Spain at the moment.

Captain McEWEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say where the Communists come in?

Mr. JONES: The Communists, I believe, are associated with the government forces at this moment in Spain. They are connected with constituted authority, and that should rejoice the hon. and gallant Gentleman very much.


There is no Government responsibility about this, but we should make quite clear, that we have noticed the half-expressed desire on the part of some sections of the British Press to see these democratic forces being beaten in Spain. They can easily talk to us as to how sacred they consider the principle of democracy in this country, but they have scarcely been able to conceal their desire to see democracy beaten finally in Spain.
I turn to the Conference of the Locarno Powers. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Government do not regard the discussion this week as final, but that it is preliminary to a larger conference, let us hope, a Five-Power Conference. If a Five-Power Conference comes and some sort of agreement is reached, we should like to know something of its implications. Germany has made it clear that she is ready at any moment to give expression and effect to her willingness to make the Western part of Europe safe from aggression. What does this particular emphasis in regard to the Western European front being made safe from aggression, imply? Does it mean a desire on the part of Germany to have a free hand in regard to Russia and Eastern Europe? We ought to have from the Government a clear declaration on that point. Where do they stand? Are they content to arrive at an agreement with Germany in regard to Western Europe and to leave Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe?
That question derives additional importance from an observation which fell from a previous speaker. He asked how many hon. Members on this side believed that a British Government would be prepared to ask the young people of this country to go to the defence of Russia, if Russia were attacked by Germany? What would the attitude of the Government be in that matter? An answer to that question is vital from the standpoint of European well-being, because you cannot get European peace unless you look at Europe as a whole, as an entity, and treat it as a whole, and not embark upon this rather curious and ill-defined policy of Western European regional pacts. Regional pacts might conceivably lead to a series of alliances here and there in Europe which might give us precisely a counterpart of what happened in Europe before 1914.

Therefore, we ask the Government what is to be the object of a Five-Power Conference. If we get agreement, say, between this country, France, Belgium, Germany and Italy, well and good, but we want to know whether that is the end of the journey or only a step further on the road towards peace.
Now I come to the next point, which is more fundamental still, and here again I would ask for light and leading. What do the Government mean by the phrase, "reform of the League"? There are plenty of people in all parties who believe that the Covenant of the League is capable of emendation. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) on that point. The provision, for instance, which demands complete unanimity in certain cases ought to be abrogated. Suppose, however, Articles 10, 11 and 16 were altered. Have we any guarantee that if Italy accepted that alteration of the Covenant, with Articles 10, 11 and 16 changed, she would then abide by the Covenant? It is no use going to the trouble of altering the Articles of the Covenant unless we can rely upon absolute fidelity to treaties and covenants. That is the fundamental trouble and the cause of what has been happening in European affairs and in Abyssinia. It is not simply that we think that there are matters in the Covenant which require improvement here and there; what we complain of is that a nation which has deliberately and of set purpose committed its signature to a document has been allowed to break it with impunity. You can change your League a thousand times, but if the members will not abide by their agreement the League Covenant, though amended, will be utterly useless. Therefore, the fundamental issue remains. It is not at bottom a question of the exact terminology of the Articles, but it is a question of fidelity to agreements, duly sealed and signed.
There is the further consideration that the moment you have a League you involve yourselves in the concept of collective security. It is involved in that, if you pledge yourselves to a common document, with common security, that you must safeguard that collective security. I have never been able to feel sure that the Government mean the same thing as we do when they use the phrase "collective


security." My conception of collective Security is that if any member of the League is attacked by another member of the League or any aggressor, all the others pledge themselves, within their power and according to their ability, to make a collective effort to safeguard the aggrieved member of the League. The Government profess to believe that principle, but they have been hiding behind the garment of collective security in order to build for themselves enormous armaments. The Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State laughs. Let me test the matter. Have the Government ever gone to the League and asked the other members of the League what contributions they are prepared to make to collective security?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): The hon. Gentleman asks me a question and I will answer. Our conception of collective security is the same as his. That is common ground. He says that the forces of order must be stronger than the forces of disorder. We say the same thing, but we believe that our method is the one that is most practical and the most likely to produce the result we all wish for.

Mr. JONES: Perhaps the Noble Lord will think I am too inquisitive, but may I repeat my innocent question? Have the Government ever gone to their fellow-members in the League and invited them to discuss what they mean by collective security? Have they asked France, Belgium and the others to say how much they are prepared to contribute to the common pool against the aggressor?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member would be a singularly impracticable way to go about it. He asks what would they be prepared to put into the common pool against the aggressor, but he does not say who the aggressor is. Nobody knows who the aggressor is going to be and nobody knows, therefore, what the size of the common pool would have to be. Nobody could negotiate with other members of the League asking them what they would do against each other in uncertain circumstances. It could not be carried out in that way. All that we can expect in this very imperfect world is for every member of the League to do its very

utmost to see that the forces of order are stronger than the forces of disorder. The hon. Member's proposition is absolutely impracticable to carry out.

Mr. JONES: Very well, I will not press that point further. So far as I have been able to discover there have been no attempts to discuss this point in the League of Nations, but when we come to the question of the three powers, Britain, France and Belgium, vis-a-vis Germany, they take the most elaborate precautions in regard to collective security. They even invite the staffs to negotiate together; they go into the most meticulous details. If the League of Nations undertook a job like that it would be beginning to realise what some of us mean by collective security.
I pass to the question of armaments. The right hon. Gentleman made an elaborate and well-intentioned appeal and I cannot blame him for having made it, but I want to recall this fact: The question of armaments is not a new story. Ever since 1931 we have consistently challenged the foreign policy of this Government. What has been our reward? I do not exaggerate. We have been laughed at, scoffed at, sneered at and derided for five years. Our appeals have fallen on deaf ears. We invited the Government to turn the Disarmament Conference into a reality and they scoffed at us. We warned the Government of what was happening in the Far East, and they laughed at us. They have never taken seriously into consideration a single contribution that we have made. Now, when danger threatens, they invite us to forget the lot. The appeal comes a little too late. We will vote against the main Estimates for these Service Votes. It is not good enough for the Government party to make out that it will be a vote against all armaments. Let me remind them of this fact: They voted against our Estimates in 1929, in 1930 and in 1931. They did not vote against the Service Estimates but they voted against the health Estimates and the education Estimates. What did they mean? Did they mean that they were against all health services and all education services? Of course not. It was their constitutional way of demanding redress of grievances before Supply was given. It is our old constitutional principle. The Opposition has a right to withhold Supplies when it wants to secure redress of grievances.
This is our way. Armaments and foreign policy are linked up together. Given a good foreign policy and we are well on the way to a good disarmament policy. But follow the present bad foreign policy of the Government and our armaments policy follows almost automatically. We are against the foreign policy of the Government. It is wrong, it is inimical to the State, and because we consider it unjustifiable, not only during the last six months but over the whole course of years during which the Government have been in office, we shall challenge the natural conclusion of this bad policy in the Division Lobby.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I had no intention of taking part in the Debate to-night. I came here to listen to what I knew would be a very momentous declaration by the Foreign Secretary on a very crucial issue, but inasmuch as several pointed allusions have been made, some of them challenging and some quite friendly, I feel that it is necessary for me to intervene. Before I come to the important speech of the Foreign Secretary I feel bound to make some observations on what I am afraid may turn out to be the equally important speech delivered by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). Let me say one word before I come to his more damaging and I think mischievous utterances, on the references he made to the Treaty of Versailles. I have no quarrel with them except that I think they were a little unfair. I am the last man to defend the Treaty of Versailles in every particular. It was a compromise between a great many conflicting claims, conflicting duties, conflicting traditions, and perhaps even conflicting emotions. You had at the time President Wilson with one attitude of mind and M. Clemenceau who represented very naturally, and I need hardly say very ably, the other. On the whole the position of Britain was rather a middle one.
We had two difficulties. One was that we were negotiating the Treaty immediately after the conclusion of the most devastating war in history, in which millions of our young men had been killed. There was great desolation; France and ourselves were still bleeding from very severe wounds. There was very fierce resentment about certain things which had happened in France, and we felt

deeply about incidents of the submarine warfare. It was not what I would call a conciliatory atmosphere. That was the first difficulty. The second difficulty was that we had to make a settlement against time. Every week that we delayed we were keeping millions of men under arms. It was very burdensome and very dangerous to keep men by the million under arms, with absolutely nothing to do, feeling that their jobs had been taken away during the time they were occupying positions in France. We had to hurry up. All that must be taken into account.
I have many times asked the question, what part of the Treaty is it that is objected to? The League of Nations is hailed as a triumph by some of the bitterest critics of the Treaty. The Independent Labour Office is the first effort to try and secure international arrangements with regard to wages and conditions of labour and hours, and it is an essential part of the League. One thing which gave us the greatest trouble was a principle which everybody accepted. I remember that there were two days of continuous sitting of the Cabinet, with every Member present, and we discussed it on Saturday and Sunday without cease. It was the principle of self-determination. Danzig is due to that; the Corridor is due to that; some of the mistakes in regard to Hungary are due to that. We had to adjudicate on the statistics which were submitted to us. There was always a natural bias for the nation which fought on our side, and we were more inclined to accept their contentions than the figures of those who fought against us. I am sorry that we were not justified in that conclusion in many cases. There are parts of Hungary which were given over to Czechoslovakia on unchallengeable statistics, which shows what dangerous things statistics are, and the proof of it is that they return at the present moment Hungarian members to the Czechoslovak Parliament.
All those things are sources of irritation. The Corridor was one of our very greatest difficulties. If Danzig had been thrown into the Corridor, there would still have been a Polish majority, and Danzig would have become Polish. The best thing we could do was to set up this expedient which very probably will be temporary, in my judgment. I think inevitably that will have to be solved


probably by an arrangement between Poland and Germany. Primarily it really concerns those two countries and not the rest of Europe. Those were the difficulties in the application of a principle which was accepted by everybody, and it shows how very much easier it is to lay down a general principle than to apply it rightly and fairly. That is really the basis of the criticism of the Treaty of Versailles.
The other criticism is that the Treaty itself has never been carried out. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham has pointed out another very great difficulty—I am not at all sure that it was not the most fatal of all—and that is that the United States of America, which had taken a very primary part in impressing those principles upon us, backed out of the League. I am not criticising President Wilson. He did his best, but he did not—for reasons into which I need not go at the present moment, although I hope to do so later on under other circumstances—manage to secure the support and adhesion of a very powerful party in the United States, a party which, as a matter of fact, was more powerful than his own. We depended upon the United States on the Reparations Commission. They had no reparations of their own, and therefore we depended upon them to be more or less impartial; but the moment they withdrew we were two and two and France was in the chair, whereas, had it not been for the absence of the United States we should have been three and two, or at any rate America probably would have been in the chair and would have had the casting vote. As it was, the casting vote in every case fell to France. The result was that reparations were very ruthlessly applied, far more ruthlessly and relentlessly than they ought to have been. Ultimately America came in to settle that question, and it has been disposed of; but our idea was that America should come in at the start.
The Treaty never had a fair chance. I want every party in the House to remember that when the Treaty was made, the only criticism I had to meet was a criticism that on the whole it was too favourable to Germany. There was very powerful criticism in France that we did not give the left bank of the Rhine entirely to France. Clemenceau faced that criticism with characteristic courage, but

one of the most powerful men in France, Marshal Foch, fought hard against him and defied his chief, and there was a scene in the Council. When I came before the House, Members criticised me very severely because the terms were too favourable to Germany. That was the atmosphere at that time, and when anybody criticises the Treaty of Versailles I want him to bear all those things in mind. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for the observations he made in regard to that, because he knew all about it.
I am afraid that is the end of my agreement with my right hon. Friend. I very deeply regret the speech which he delivered. I think it was pernicious and provocative. Those are two adjectives which I have no doubt hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could apply to a great many of my speeches as well, but there is this difference, that I am speaking here in a position of complete irresponsibility, except as Member for my constituency. But the right hon. Gentleman is in a very responsible position. He is the Member who wields the whip. He is the one who whipped the Government into sanctions. He is the one who whipped them out of sanctions. He is the one who wielded the whip that drove the First Lord of the Admiralty out of the Government and destroyed the whole of their pact. Those are three great occasions on which he exercised authority, and when my right hon. Friend makes a speech he cannot altogether say, "I am simply the Member for West Birmingham." He is in a very responsible position. I am not sure that he is not the chairman of one of the largest Committees of Members on his side of the House—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate he is really their authentic spokesman. Therefore, everybody in Europe knows that—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I take full responsibility for all that I say, but I do not consult with, and I do not submit my speeches to, anybody else. I can make nobody else responsible for anything I have said. I think I sometimes have the happy knack of expressing the opinion of a large part of the House, but nobody except myself is responsible for my speeches, and I have the fullest responsibility for everything I say.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend is in the same position as I am. I do not consult anybody and I say exactly what I think; but he has the advantage that he has a larger number of people who obey him. But that does not matter; what matters is that the Press of Europe prints the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman; it prints not merely the speeches of the Foreign Secretary but the right hon. Gentleman's speeches as well, because they always bear in mind that during the last two years the right hon. Gentleman has been a sort of forerunner. He is the bell weather, and the rest follow his lead. That is the dangerous character of the speech which he delivered. I had awaited with great anxiety the decisions to which the Government would come on Thursday last, and I say quite frankly that I was not merely relieved, but very delighted.
It is not often that I am in the position of a supporter of this Government. I am going to ask a question about the fifth proposition—I think there were five propositions—put forward. If that means anything it means that the Government are going to make a genuine effort to put an end to the feud that has lasted for centuries between Teuton and Gaul, which has simply drenched the soil of Europe with blood, not only the blood of Frenchmen and Germans but the blood of Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen. Century after century we have had this quarrel, and I see here at last the Government are to make a real effort to put an end to that quarrel. If they succeed, it is a very good foundation on which to proceed, to rebuild the League if necessary and to try to secure the peace of the world.
The League of Nations was all right. The ideal was a fine one. I do not think there is very much wrong with the constitution, because it is very elastic. But there was no firm foothold. Why? Because of this quarrel between Gaul and Teuton. The Gaul distrusted the Teuton, or perhaps I may say feared him. The Germans did the same on the other side and they had both good reason. There are times when the Frenchman has devastated Germany cruelly and the German had his revenge. If you go through the pages of history, I do not know where the balance lies. All I know is that it is a ledger of ruin, of slaughter,

of war, of rapacity on both sides. If the Government do put an end to that, they will have rendered an immortal service to humanity. Therefore, although I am as strong a critic of the Government as anybody, though I hope a just critic, the moment I saw that, I came here to say "I am glad."
That is what makes me very anxious about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He entered into a long story of treaties broken and of wrongs inflicted by Germany. That always provokes a recital on the other side, and I will only make this one observation, because I do not want to prolong controversy or to enter into controversy on the matter. If France had honourably carried out the pledges given by her own Prime Minister, under his own hand, to follow the example of Germany in disarming, you would never have had Herr Hitler in power. You would have been dealing with men to-day just like those whom you had before—Simons, Stresemann, Bruening. There have never been three men who had the peace of the world nearer at heart. They were swept away because they did not stand firmly for the pledges given under the Treaty of Versailles as to disarming.
Many a time I asked the Government to produce the document which the right hon. Gentleman saw, which I saw and which four or five others saw, the document prepared by the War Office for our examination showing the armaments of France in 1931—gigantic armaments, millions of reserves. And at that time, remember, Germany had an army of 100,000. Czechoslovakia had an army of nearly 1,000,000 on her borders, with reserves—and it is the reserves that count in a great war. Poland had nearly 2,000,000 on her frontier and France had about 4,000,000. I will show the right hon. Gentleman the document. It is not my document. It is the document of the War Office. It is there and it ought to be published. That was in 1931, 12 years after the signature of the Treaty of Versailles. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about breaches of treaties. He knows quite well that all those pretentious committees and commissions for disarmament were one long manoeuvre and intrigue on the part of the armed Powers of Europe to retain their supremacy.
If you are going to begin that sort of business, I am very glad that the Government have made up their mind to treat all that, on both sides, as a chapter which ought to be closed and to try to begin afresh. I am also glad that they treated Stresa as something which is not to be reopened, because Stresa was practically a combination of three Powers who were to enforce sanctions against Germany in the event of rearmament. It is no use. There is the accomplished fact and it is an accomplished fact upon the basis of something in which there is a great deal of justification for the action of Germany. I am glad that they have treated even the invasion of the Rhineland, even its fortification, as something which you must accept for the moment. You cannot alter it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: And Abyssinia?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am coming to that; I am not going to shirk anything the right hon. Gentleman has said. The moment the Russo-French Pact was signed, no one responsible for the security of Germany could leave its most important industrial province without defence of any sort or kind when—and here is a thing which is never dwelt upon—France had built the most gigantic fortifications ever seen in any land, where, almost 100 feet underground, you could keep an army of over 100,000 and where you have guns that can fire straight into Germany. Yet the Germans are supposed to remain without even a garrison, without a trench. I am going to say here that if Herr Hitler had not taken some action with regard to that—whether it is a wise action or not I am not going to argue and whether he could have set it right by negotiation or not I do not know, but I am a little doubtful having regard to the past—but if Herr Hitler had allowed that to go without protecting his country he would have been a traitor to the Fatherland.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have under taken to conclude in time to allow the Noble Lord opposite to reply. I want the Committee to bear all that in mind. The story is not all on one side. I am very glad that the Government have decided practically, I will not say to

acknowledge and I will not say to accept—you cannot expect them to do that—but at any rate to say "Let us begin afresh, and see whether we cannot bring this terrible chapter of misery and increasing terror for the world to an end."
I thought what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham said about what my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) said in reference to armaments was very unfair and not very wise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness voted for those Estimates. Personally, I should have voted for the Air Estimates and the Army Estimates. I should have opposed the Navy Estimates, on the ground that in my judgment the Government were not doing it in the right way. I am very much against the increase in capital ships, and I would have spent far more money on the little craft that we found more valuable. Some of my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies are confronted with a serious agitation about a bombing school. It is a formidable agitation, but if the Government decide in the interests of security that we must have an increased Air Force we must have training schools somewhere, and we cannot always say "Let it be somewhere else."
It is a great mistake to taunt my hon. and right hon. Friends here. When the War came in 1914 we were dependent on volunteers for the first two years. Conscription did not come in for a long time. There were no parts of the country where people volunteered in such throngs as in those mining areas, which all voted Labour at that time. Nobly they fought; everybody who was in the War knows what first-class fighting men they made, how loyal they were, and it is a mistake on the part of anybody who has a real concern for the defence of this Realm to assume that there is a large section—they represent millions—who are not as ready to die for the honour and integrity and independence of this country as anybody who belongs to any other party.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to say that I agree, completely and whole-heartedly.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am delighted. I am glad I said it if only to elicit that. With regard to Mandates, I


was delighted with the declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I said to a friend of mine, "That is a very courageous speech." I am not one of the constant admirers of the Chancellor, but on this occasion I thought it a great utterance on his part. I listened with great care to every word that the Foreign Secretary said. I thought not merely that it was courageous, but that it was very wise. I could see it was very carefully framed, that every word was weighed. I am not criticising one word of it. At the present moment I do not think he could have gone further, but I am very glad he made no concession to the clamour in favour of slamming the door.
He was right in his appeal to those whom it concerns not to raise that issue at the present moment, and I thoroughly endorse that appeal. It would be a great mistake to do it. There are many things you can do short of transfer. I have never thought it enough to say, "You can come in and buy anything you like," or "You can come in and sell anything you like." One of the difficulties is currency. If the right hon. Gentleman goes into that question I hope that, as a temporary expedient, he will consider the possibility of giving an open door which is a real one to business men. I should say that for the moment that will probably satisfy them. When you come to the Mandates, my right hon. Friend knows it very well, we did not want them. We discussed it among ourselves, and our first suggestion was that we were hopeful America would take them.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I suggested and pressed on to my right hon. Friend that Palestine should be offered to America. I thought Palestine was the one most likely to attract America. My right hon. Friend did not agree on that.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes, I did.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He offered Armenia instead.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not nearly as cute as the right hon. Gentleman. I am certain there was a discussion about America taking them.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know more about it than my right hon. Friend. I was in charge of this business.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I never heard such a suggestion.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate we were not anxious to have them, and we were not prepared to hand them over to other Powers glutted with colonies. I am glad that the Government have refused absolutely to close the door altogether. If they did that it would be provocative, it would not help the conference, and I think they have gone as far as it is desirable for them to go at this stage.
I come to another point which I must put to the Foreign Secretary. I tried to get him to make a declaration as to the general principles upon which he thought there ought to be a reform of the League. I am very sorry that he could not see his way to take the House of Commons into his confidence. He must remember this, that before he threw over sanctions, without any consultation with any Power in the world, even his cosignatories, he told the House of Commons what he was going to do. Why should he not do so now? He admits that France expressed an opinion, and so she did. There are other Powers that expressed an opinion. I think Russia expressed some opinion in regard to it. They took a different view to that which is taken by those who want to eliminate all the coercive elements out of the Covenant of the League. Then why should we be so timid about it?
The right hon. Gentleman says, "Well, I want agreement." An expression of opinion as to what you think does not prevent agreement. On the contrary, you enter a conference with everybody stating frankly what his opinion is, and then, if you want agreement, you reach some sort of compromise at the end, but it is far better that you should go there with a definite statement of your views. You are not delivering an ultimatum to the other Powers and saying, "Here we stand, and we do not budge"; even if you said it, nobody would believe it now. May I say frankly what I think? I do not think the trouble is that he is afraid of disagreement in Geneva. He is afraid of disagreement in the Cabinet. They have not agreed upon their policy there,


and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman cannot declare it here. But I think the House of Commons ought to know.
The whole life of the League depends upon this—Is it going to be a Secretariat, or is it going to be a League? Is it going to be collective security or merely collective opinion? Is it going to be simply a gathering like the International Parliamentary Peace Conference, which meets once a year to express its views, with the chairman saying, "All those of that opinion please hold up their hand," and everybody going home and nothing done? Is it a Covenant with complete authority behind it, or is it simply an Assembly which is called together as a debating society to discuss propositions? We ought to know where the Government stand with regard to that. You have a pact for Western Europe. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if Germany says, "We will enter into no pact with regard to the East at all, because under no conditions will we fight for the Bolsheviks," he is going to say the Conference is off? There you have a definite pact with military discussions, which means sanctions. Are there to be no sanctions with regard to the rest?
A good deal has been said about what I said about Austria, which was thrown out incidentally, but I stand by it. That simply means the Resolution of 1921, which explains what the League is. It was explained very fully by my right hon. Friend, and I accept his explanation. What it means is this—and the right hon. Gentleman accepted it—that there are areas where you are prepared to fight. We have undertaken to defend the territory of France, and we will fight if anybody invades it. That is war, but there are parts of Europe where you could not send your Army, where you could not get an Army to go. Does that mean that you are to do nothing with regard to the other things? Not at all. There are other sanctions in the League which would be very powerful. Those that are geographically contiguous would contribute their portions and then we should come in with our economic sanctions and our financial sanctions. We are always talking about omitting financial sanctions. As a matter of fact, the two Pitts very largely fought their wars

with financial sanctions, by giving financial aid to the people where they could not send troops to support them, and that is one of the most vital things that has been completely neglected. That is why I am very sorry the Abyssinian demands were thrown on one side, but I have not time for that now.
There are economic and financial sanctions, especially oil. I agree with Mr. Litvinov's declaration that those sanctions were not effective. I believe that if oil sanctions had been introduced, they would have been effective. I wonder how many people in this House know that the War came to an end in 1918 instead of 1919 because of an oil sanction. If they will take the trouble, as I have taken, to look at the investigations by the Reichstag into the reason why Germany collapsed in 1918, they will find it. There was not a general on our side who believed the War would come to an end until 1919. What happened? The collapse of Bulgaria. The Roumanian oil wells were then within our grasp. The enemy generals said, "We cannot go on beyond another six weeks." That was the thing that determined them, from the military point of view, that the game was up. Oil is the most effective sanction, and I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when he goes to Geneva, will seize hold of these things—military intervention where it is appropriate, economic and financial sanctions elsewhere.
May I, in conclusion, say that I wish the right hon. Gentleman and his friends well in this Conference from the bottom of my heart? If they can bring these Powers together, they will do well. Herr Hitler has said—and I am one of those who believe that when he says a thing he means it—"There is nothing that will induce me to repeat the mistake which we made in 1918 and attack in the West, and I do not want any territory from France." That, I agree, is the attitude of Germany. I cannot understand France not coming to terms with Germany. She has everything to gain by doing it, and she has, in my judgment, nothing to lose. If the right hon. Gentleman can convince her of that—and I think he has a better chance with this Government than with any Government that has been in France in my time—if he can convince France of that and carry French opinion with him—and the French peasants do not want any more


war; I am sure they are pacific in their intentions—if he can succeed in doing that, then he will have achieved something that will give him immortal fame.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. EDEN: I must apologise for imposing myself on the Committee again, but the Government thought that in the few minutes that remained it might be desirable, in view of the importance of the subjects which have been raised in the Debate, if I attempted to give a reply myself. Various subsidiary points have been raised which time will not allow me to deal with, but I want to mention one question that has received some prominence in the Press, namely, the supply of oil to the Spanish fleet at Gibraltar. I have been asked whether His Majesty's Government have put a ban on the supply of oil to the Spanish fleet. The answer is "No." If a further explanation is wanted, I shall be glad to give it in answer to a question, but I want to make it plain that no such ban has been imposed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) began his speech with a justification of the Treaty of Versailles. Neither I nor any of my generation, who had nothing to do with the drafting of that Treaty is complaining of it, because we appreciate the circumstances in which it was negotiated. If I have a complaint against the right hon. Gentleman, it is that, whereas he expects us to realise the difficulties under which he negotiated the Treaty, he is not ready to appreciate the difficulties under which we have to work to-day. They are, in truth, not greatly different. They are essentially the need for distinguishing between what you want to do in foreign affairs and what you can do. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the underlying purpose of the recent communiqué issued at the end of our meeting a few days ago. I think the purpose to be quite clear, and I believe its real spirit to be embodied in the second paragraph, where we say and mean:
Nothing would be more fatal to the hopes of such a settlement than the division, apparent or real, of Europe into opposing blocs.
I do think that it is a matter for which we should pay a tribute to our French and Belgian colleagues that they should have

associated themselves whole-heartedly with a statement of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman and, I think, the hon. Gentleman who wound up for the Opposition, asked me whether I would say anything further about the programme of this projected Five-Power meeting. I regret that I cannot because I think that it is essential, if we are to have any chance of success in that meeting, that its programme should be worked out jointly. If I were to attempt at this time to give my interpretation to that communiqué before even I received the reply of the German Government, and before I replied to any questions from them or any communications from the Italian Government, I do not think that I should be facilitating the chances of a successful meeting when it takes place. What I want to do is, through diplomatic channels, to get agreement upon the time and place, and also upon the agenda. The task is an immensely formidable one, but I am sure that the Committee will agree that I cannot carry the matter further to-night than it is carried in the communiqué to which we set our names only a day or two ago.
I would like to say a word on the subject of Mandates. The statement which I made to the Committee to-night was a carefully considered statement by the Government. It is impossible for me to amplify it in any way. I would only ask hon. Members to read it carefully, and then I think that they will appreciate that that statement is as definite as the Government could possibly make it in existing circumstances.
I would like to turn to the main question of this Debate. I am frankly, as Foreign Secretary, very glad that this Debate has taken place. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) that we are not very far apart on the main issue so far as the future of the League is concerned. The main burden of complaint of hon. Members opposite was that I had not declared in specific terms our attitude of the League before the September meeting. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who spoke for the Opposition, wanted us to state our policy because other nations were longing for us to take the lead and wanted to follow our lead. That was in contrast to what he said earlier, that our prestige had


sunk so low that no one would follow us. We are willing to take the lead again in the matter. All I ask is that we should choose our own time for doing it, and that time cannot be, in our judgment, before we have had an exchange of views with other members of the League before the date fixed by the League itself. At the same time, the Government do appreciate the anxiety expressed by hon. Members and voiced by the right hon. Gentleman just before he sat down. I think that their anxieties are largely based on a fear that the League will come to a sudden decision in September for some radical reform of the League to which we shall be a party before the House will have a chance of considering the situation.
I am confident that that is not in the least likely to be the position. In fact, to imagine that it will be the position shows a misunderstanding of the real complexities of the present situation. Let us consider what has been said to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) pleaded for a reinterpretation of Article 11. There is much force in his contention on that point. He then raised the question of Article 19. Anybody who has ever put his nose inside an international conference knows what explosive material Article 19 is. I am not saying that I under-rate the significance of the Article. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham raised the question of the relationship of Article 10 to Article 19. I agree that there is much substance in what he said, but the very complexity of all these questions must surely show that it is not possible for the Government at this stage to make a precise declaration on all those points. Nor, I think, is the fact that the League is likely to take time over this matter a bad thing, because this question will have to be related to the European situation with which we are now trying to deal.
None the less, I want to give the Committee as much guidance as I can of what is in the mind of the Government. Let me say at the outset that we do not intend to propose any drastic amendments of the main structure of the Covenant. Moreover, there are certain principles connected with the collective organisation of peace which, in our view,

it is essential to maintain and to which the Covenant gives expression. Most important of all these principles is the prevention of war. That includes a number of important elements, of which I will mention four: the machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes, the machinery for the adjustment of grievances, the creation of a deterrent to war, the establishment of an international agreement for the reduction and limitation of armaments. All those elements are indispensable to the collective organisation of peace, and all those elements the Government wish to see maintained in any modifications that may be made. If the Committee will consider all I have said I think they will see that I have given some guidance to the way in which the mind of the Government is working in this matter.
I should like to deal with the remaining question which the Committee quite properly asked. Their anxiety is this: During the interim period that may be necessary for the examination of this subject, what is to be the position? I think I can give a perfectly specific reply. His Majesty's Government will be prepared to take their part in any action which the members of the League may collectively agree should be taken under the Covenant which we have all signed. There, I think, hon. Members will see that I have sought to meet some of their preoccupations. I must also answer the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who said there was some doubt even of our guarantee arising out of the Locarno Treaty. I am surprised to hear that because I thought the position had been made clear over and over again. It is that the guarantees against aggression given to Belgium and to France still stand under the terms of the Locarno Treaty. I hope the Committee will appreciate that I have attempted to meet what I fully understand to be their preoccupations.
The last thing, very naturally, I should wish to do is to taunt anybody at a time like this for statements of policy which they may make, but I am bound to conclude this time as I concluded early this afternoon. I do believe that what divides us in the main lines of our foreign policy is not so real a cleavage as it can be made to appear in rhetoric to and fro across the Floor of the House. I welcome that fact,


if it is true, and I think it is, because I am more than ever convinced that in Europe and the world as it exists to-day democracies must find their unity if they are going to survive.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £117,636, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 290.

Division No. 311.]
AYES.
[9.59 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, G. D.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bellenger, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Holland, A.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Rowson, G.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Compton, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mander, G. le M.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham


Foot, D. M.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W.


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibbins, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.
Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Acland.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Blindell, Sir J.
Channon, H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Boulton, W. W.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Christie, J. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bracken, B.
Clarke, F. E.


Assheton, R.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Brass, Sir W.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Colman, N. C. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colville, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Dufff (W'st'r S. G'gs)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Burton, Col. H. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Bainlel, Lord
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Craddock, Sir R. H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Cranborne, Viscount


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Carver, Major W. H.
Crooke, J. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cary, R. A.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Bernays, R. H.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Cross, R. H.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Blair, Sir R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Culverwell, C. T.




Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Dawson, Sir P.
Jackson, Sir H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


De Chair, S. S.
Joel, D. J. B.
Remer, J. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gtn)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Doland, G. F.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Donner, P. W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Kimball, L.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Drewe, C.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Salmon, Sir I.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Latham, Sir P.
Salt, E. W.


Duggan, H. J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Dunglass, Lord
Leckie, J. A.
Sandys, E. D.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Savery, Servington


Eales, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scott, Lord William


Eastwood, J. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Selley, H. R.


Eckersley, P. T.
Levy, T.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Ellis, Sir G.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Elliston, G. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Emery, J. F.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Simmonds, O. E.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Entwistle, C. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lyons, A. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Fleming, E. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smithers, Sir W.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Furness, S. N.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spens, W. P.


Gluckstein, L. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
McKie, J. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Goldle, N. B.
Maitland, A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Storey, S.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maxwell, S. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morgan, R. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd, S.)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Munro, P.
Touche, G. C.


Hanbury, Sir C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hannah, I. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Harbord, A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Turton, R. H.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Patrick, C. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peake, O.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peat, C. U.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Penny, Sir G.
Warrender, Sir V.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wells, S. R.


Holmes, J. S.
Pilkington, R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hopkinson, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Radford, E. A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wragg, H.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsbotham, H.



Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rankin, R.
Commander Southby and Captain


Hunter, T.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Hope.

It being after Ten of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 138.

Division No. 312.]
AYES.
[10.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Drewe, C.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Latham, Sir P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Duggan, H. J.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Leckie, J. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Assheton, R.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Eales, J. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Eastwood, J. F.
Levy, T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eckersley, P. T.
Liddall, W. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, G. W.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Ellis, Sir G.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Balniel, Lord
Elliston, G. S.
Loftus, P. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Emery, J. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lyons, A. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Entwistle, C. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Bernays, R. H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Blair, Sir R.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Blindell, Sir J.
Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Boulton, W. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ganzoni, Sir J.
McKie, J. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bracken, B.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Maitland, A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Brass, Sir W.
Goldie, N. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Maxwell, S. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Bull, B. B.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Butler, R. A.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Grimston, R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Morgan, R. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Cary, R. A.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'r W'll, N. W.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Munro, P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guy, J. C. M.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Channon, H.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannah, I. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Christie, J. A.
Harbord, A.
Patrick, C. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Peake, O.


Clarke, F. E.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Peat, C. U.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Perkins, W. R. D.


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Petherick, M.


Colville, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Pilkington, R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Holmes, J. S.
Plugge, L. F.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (Wst'r S. G'gs)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hopkinson, A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Radford, E. A.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Crooke, J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rankin, R.


Crossley, A. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hunter, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Remer, J. R.


Dawson, Sir P.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


De Chair, S. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


De la Bère, R.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Doland, G. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Donner, P. W.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Kimball, L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Salmon, Sir I.







Salt, E. W.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Spens, W. P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Sandys, E. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Turton, R. H.


Savery, Servington
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, W. W.


Scott, Lord William
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Selley, H. R.
Storey, S.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Shakespeare, G. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Warrender, Sir V.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wells, S. R.


Simmonds, O. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Sutcliffe, H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Tate, Mavis C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wise, A. R.


Smithers, Sir W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wragg, H.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.



Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Titchfield, Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Touche, G. C.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Holdsworth, H.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Broad, F. A.
Holland, A.
Rowson, G.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Short, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Compton, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W.


Foot, D. M.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibbins, J.
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Paling, W.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, H. J. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Acland.


Question put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates,

and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, the Navy, Army, and Air, be granted for the Services defined in those Glasses and Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS I.

That a sum, not exceeding £1,428,664, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
House of Lords Offices
25,778


2.
House of Commons
236,785


3.
Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts
175,000


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
203,851


5.
Privy Council Office
8,105


6.
Privy Seal Office
2,402


7.
Charity Commission
26,621


8.
Civil Service Commission
15,300


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
87,954


10.
Friendly Societies' Deficiency
5,529


11.
Government Actuary
20,620


12.
Government Chemist
52,964


13.
Government Hospitality
5,000


14.
Import Duties Advisory Committee
39,414


15.
The Mint
75,000


16.
National Debt Office
2,327


17.
National Savings Committee
74,598


18.
Public Record Office
26,742


19.
Public Works Loan Commission
90


20.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
35,604


21.
Royal Commissions, etc.
23,600


22.
Miscellaneous Expenses
3,818


23.
Secret Service (including a Supplementary sum of £100,000)
250,000


24.
Treasury Chest Fund
24,322


26.
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
7,230


27.
Tithe Redemption Commission
10




£1,428,664"

CLASS II.

That a sum, not exceeding £5,959,602, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


2.
Diplomatic and Consular Services
595,955


3.
League of Nations
141,500


4.
Dominions Office
34,564


5.
Dominion Services
426,151


6.
Irish Free State Services
1,925,067


7.
Oversea Settlement
13,475







£


8.
Colonial Office
112,459


9.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services (including a Supplementary sum of £10)
513,303


10.
Colonial Development Fund
550,000


11.
India Services
1,213,625


12.
Imperial War Graves Commission
433,503




£5,959,602"

CLASS III.

That a sum, not exceeding £10,722,219, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Home Office (including a Supplementary sum of £857,000)
1,536,259


2.
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
47,461


3.
Police, England and Wales
5,906,759


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
568,042


5.
Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales
255,250


6.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
90


7.
County Courts
90


8.
Land Registry
90


9.
Public Trustee
90


10.
Law Charges
81,745


11.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
7,056


Scotland.


12.
Police
958,496


13.
Prisons Department
120,207


14.
Approved Schools, etc.
41,800


15.
Scottish Land Court
5,286


16.
Law Charges and Courts of Law
30,231


17.
Register House, Edinburgh
90


Northern Ireland.


18.
Northern Ireland Services
2,273


19.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
1,540


20.
Land Purchase Commission
1,159,364




£10,722,219"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 127.

Division No. 313.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Doland, G. F.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Donner, P. W.
Jackson, Sir H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Joel, D. J. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Drewe, C.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Keeling, E. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Assheton, R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Dunglass, Lord
Kimball, L.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dunne, P. R. R.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Eales, J. F.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eastwood, J. F.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eckersley, P. T.
Latham, Sir P.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Ellis, Sir G.
Leckie, J. A.


Balniel, Lord
Elliston, G. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Emery, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Emmott, C. E. C. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, T.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Entwistle, C. F.
Liddall, W. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Bernays, R. H.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lloyd, G. W.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Fleming, E. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Blair, Sir R.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Blindell, Sir J.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Furness, S. N.
Lyons, A. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bracken, B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gluckstein, L. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)


Brass, Sir W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Goldie, N. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gower, Sir R. V.
McKie, J. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bull, B. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mander, G. le M.


Butler, R. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cary, R. A.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Channon, H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Morgan, R. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Christie, J. A.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hannah, I. C.
Munro, P.


Clarke, F. E.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Harbord, A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Harris, Sir P. A.
O'Connor, Sir Terrence J.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Colman, N. C. D.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Owen, Major G.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Patrick, C. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Peake, O.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh W.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peat, C. U.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Penny, Sir G.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Holdsworth, H.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Crooke, J. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Petherick, M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hopkinson, A.
Pilkington, R.


Crossley, A. C.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Plugge, L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Culverwell, C. T.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Radford, E. A.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Dawson, Sir P.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


De Chair, S. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


De la Bère, R.
Hunter, T.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rankin, R.







Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Simmonds, O. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Touche, G. C.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Remer, J. R.
Smithers, Sir W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Turton, R. H.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Wakefield, W. W.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Rothschild, J. A. de
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Spens, W. P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Salmon, Sir I.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Salt, E. W.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Wells, S. R.


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Storey, S.
White, H. Graham


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Sandys, E. D.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Savery, Servington
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon S.)


Scott, Lord William
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wise, A. R.


Selley, H. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Shakespeare, G. H.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wragg, H.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tasker, Sir R. I.



Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Tate, Mavis C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Lieut,-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Ward and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, G. D.
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Holland, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bellenger, F.
Hopkin, D.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, O.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A,
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Broad, F. A.
John, W.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Burke, W. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Compton, J.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Marklew, E.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W.


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gibbins, J.
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV.

That a sum, not exceeding £36,094,327, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services

included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Board of Education
30,123,726


2.
British Museum
108,680


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
69,916








£


4.
Imperial War Museum
8,270


5.
London Museum
3,822


6.
National Gallery
17,631


7.
National Maritime Museum
6,114


8.
National Portrait Gallery
5,881


9.
Wallace Collection
7,501


10.
Scientific Investigation, etc.
126,525


11.
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain
1,341,000


Scotland.


12.
Public Education
4,265,674


13.
National Galleries
7,439


14.
National Library
2,148




£36,094,327"

CLASS V.

That a sum, not exceeding £100,612,219, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Ministry of Health
15,628,150


2.
Board of Control
91,973

£


3.
Registrar General's Office
65,668


4.
National Insurance Audit Department
111,440


5.
Friendly Societies Registry
32,563


6.
Old Age Pensions
28,221,000


7.
Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions
8,500,000


8.
Ministry of Labour
14,219,000


9.
Unemployment Allowances
27,600,000


10.
Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
2,750,000


11.
Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales
90


12.
Unemployment Assistance Board
1,370,000


13.
Special Areas Fund
2,000,000


Scotland.


15.
Board of Control
10,255


16.
Registrar General's Office
11,990


17.
Commissioner for Special Areas
90




£100,612,219"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 326; Noes, 134.

Division No. 314.]
AYES.
[10.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Butler, R. A.
Drewe, C.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Carver, Major W. H.
Duggan, H. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cary, R. A.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dunglass, Lord


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Dunne, P. R. R.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eales, J. F.


Assheton, R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Eastwood, J. F.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Channon, H.
Eckersley, P. T.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarke, F. E.
Ellis, Sir G.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Elliston, G. S.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Emery, J. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Balniel, Lord
Colman, N. C. D.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Colville, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Entwistle, C. F.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Belt, Sir A. L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Everard, W. L.


Bernays, R. H.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Fleming, E. L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.


Blair, Sir R.
Crooke, J. S.
Furness, S. N.


Blindell, Sir J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ganzonl, Sir J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crossley, A. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Culverwell, C. T.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Bracken, B.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Goldie, N. B.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Brass, Sir W.
Dawson, Sir P.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
De Chair, S. S.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
De la Bère, R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Doland, G. F.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Bull, B. B.
Donner, P. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Grimston, R. V.




Gritten, W. G. Howard
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Salt, E. W.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sandys, E. D.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Savery, Servington


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
McKie, J. H.
Scott, Lord William


Guy, J. C. M.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Maitland, A.
Selley, H. R.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Hannah, I. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Maxwell, S. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Harbord, A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Simmonds, O. E.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Morgan, R. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Holdsworth, H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hopkinson, A.
Munro, P.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Spens, W. P.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Storey, S.


Hulbert, N. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Owen, Major G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hunter, T.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Patrick, C. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Peake, O.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Jackson, Sir H.
Peat, C. U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Joel, D. J. B.
Penny, Sir G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tate, Mavis C.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Petherick, M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Keeling, E. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Pilkington, R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Plugge, L. F.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Touche, G. C.


Kimball, L.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Procter, Major H. A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Radford, E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Turton, R. H.


Latham, Sir P.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Ramsbotham, H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Leckle, J. A.
Rankin, R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Levy, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Liddall, W. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Remer, J. R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lloyd, G. W.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wise, A. R.


Loftus, P. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wragg, H.


Lyons, A. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.



Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


McCorquodale, M. S.
Salmon, Sir I.
Ward and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cape, T.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Adamson, W. M.
Chater, D.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cluse, W. S.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Banfield, J. W.
Compton, J.
Foot, D. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Cove, W. G.
Frankel, D.


Barr, J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Gallacher, W.


Batey, J.
Daggar, G.
Gardner, B. W.


Bellenger, F.
Dalton, H.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Benson, G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bevan, A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Broad, F. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gibbins, J.


Bromfield, W.
Day, H.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Brooke, W.
Dobbie, W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Burke, W. A.
Ede, J. C.
Grenfell, D. R.







Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mander, G. le M.
Simpson, F. B.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Marklew, E.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mathers, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Hardie, G. D.
Milner, Major J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Montague, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, W.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Muff, G.
Thurtle, E.


Holland, A.
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, J. J.


Hopkin, D.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Viant, S. P.


Jagger, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Walker, J.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Watkins, F. C.


John, W.
Parker, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Welsh, J. C.


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Potts, J.
White, H. Graham


Kirkwood, D.
Price, M. P.
Whiteley, W.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Pritt, D. N.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Lathan, G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Lawson, J. J.
Riley, B.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Leonard, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Leslie, J. R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Lunn, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Rowson, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


McEntee, V. La T.
Salter, Dr. A.



McGhee, H. G.
Sexton, T. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maclean, N.
Shinwell, E.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.:


Mainwaring, W. H.
Short, A.

CLASS VI.

That a sum, not exceeding £13,801,898, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


2.
Mercantile Marine Services
260,822


3.
Assistance to British Shipping
2,000,000


4.
Department of Overseas Trade
308,371


5.
Export Credits
90


6.
Mines Department of the Board of Trade
130,744


7.
Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
23,270


8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
1,277,878


9.
Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain
3,305,010


10.
Milk (England and Wales and Northern Ireland)
1,145,000

£


11.
Cattle Fund (including a Supplementary sum of £2,930,900)
2,934,900


12.
Surveys of Great Britain
166,820


13.
Forestry Commission
500,000


14.
Ministry of Transport
41,152


15.
Development Fund
405,000


16.
Development Grants
670,000


17.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
436,661


18.
State Management Districts
90


19.
Clearing Offices
90


Scotland.


21.
Milk
162,000


23.
Herring Industry
34,000




£13,801,898"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 140.

Division No. 315.]
AYES.
[10.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Bull, B. B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Beit, Sir A. L.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Bernays, R. H.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Butler, R. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bird, Sir R. B.
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Aske, Sir R. W.
Blair, Sir R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Assheton, R.
Blindell, Sir J.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Boulton, W. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cary, R. A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Atholl, Duchess of
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bracken, B.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Brass, Sir W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Channon, H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)




Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peat, C. U.


Clarke, F. E.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Penny, Sir G.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Holdsworth, H.
Petherick, M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Holmes, J. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Pilkington, R.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hopkinson, A.
Plugge, L. F.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Radford, E. A.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Crooke, J. S.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hunter, T.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Crossley, A. C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rankin, R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Jackson, Sir H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Dawson, Sir P.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


De Chair, S. S.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


De la Bère, R.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Remer, J. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Keeling, E. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Doland, G. F.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Donner, P. W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Kimball, L.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Drewe, C.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Latham, Sir P.
Salmon, Sir I.


Duggan, H. J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Salt, E. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Dunglass, Lord
Leckle, J. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandys, E. D.


Eales, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Servington


Eastwood, J. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Scott, Lord William


Eckersley, P. T.
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lewis, O.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Ellis, Sir G.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Elliston, G. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Emery, J. F.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Simmonds, O. E.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Entwistle, C. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lyons, A. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smithers, Sir W.


Everard, W. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Fleming, E. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Spens, W. P.


Ganzonl, Sir J.
McKle, J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Maitland, A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Goldie, N. B.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Storey, S.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Maxwell, S. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis C.


Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morgan, R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Touche, G. C.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Guy, J. C. M.
Munro, P.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Turton, R. H.


Hanbury, Sir C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hannah, I. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Harbord, A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Patrick, C. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peake, O.
Wayland, Sir W. A.







Wells, S. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Wise, A. R.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Williams, C. (Torquay)
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Ward and Mr. Cross.


Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wragg, H.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rowson, G.


Bromfield, W.
Holland, A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Cape, T.
John, W.
Short, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Compton, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Dobble, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Westwood, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marklew, E.
White, H. Graham


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibbins, J.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Owen, Major G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.



Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII.

That a sum, not exceeding £4,837,545, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain
231,840


2.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
81,295


4.
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
95,825


5.
Osborne
7,470


6.
Office of Works and Public Buildings
361,900


7.
Public Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £32,350)
896,345


8.
Public Buildings Overseas (Supplementary sum)
38,750







£


9.
Royal Palaces (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000)
86,964


10.
Revenue Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000)
1,054,295


11.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
134,255


12.
Rates on Government Property
932,852


13.
Stationery and Printing
872,859


14.
Peterhead Harbour
21,000


15.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
21,895




£4,837,545"

CLASS VIII.

That a sum, not exceeding £27,960,108, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which


will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
187,541


2.
Ministry of Pensions
25,900,000


3.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
829,988


4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
1,042,579




£27,960,108"

CLASS IX.

That a sum, not exceeding £28,224,427, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
24,499,947


2.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
3,724,480




£28,224,427"

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1936.

That a sum, not exceeding £53,185,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the

year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:




£


1.
Customs and Excise
3,737,100


2.
Inland Revenue
5,104,700


3.
Post Office
44,344,000




£53,185,800"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1936.

That a sum, not exceeding £40,782,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:




£


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
384,500


4.
Fleet Air Arm
3,066,000


5.
Educational Services
204,000


6.
Scientific Services
492,000


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
350,700


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c.:




Section I.—Personnel
7,072,000



Section II.—Matériel
5,752,300



Section III. — Contract Work
14,441,000


9.
Naval Armaments
7,115,300


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
721,300


12.
Admiralty Office
1,183,000




£40,782,100"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 334; Noes, 105.

Division No. 316.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Boyce, H. Leslie
Colman, N. C. D.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Bracken, B.
Colville, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Adams, S, V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Brass, Sir W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G. gs)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Craddock, Sir R. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bull, B. B.
Crooke, J. S.


Assheton, R.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Burton, Col. H. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Butler, R. A.
Cross, R. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Crossley, A. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Crowder, J. F. E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Culverwell, C. T.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Carver, Major W. H.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cary, R. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Balniel, Lord
Castlereagh, Viscount
Davison, Sir W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Dawson, Sir P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
De Chair, S. S.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
De la Bère, R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Channon, H.
Doland, G. F.


Bernays, R. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Donner, P. W.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Christie, J. A.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.


Blair, Sir R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Drewe, C.


Blindell, Sir J.
Clarke, F. E.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)


Boulton, W. W.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Bower, Comdr. R. I.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Duggan, H. J.




Duncan, J. A. L.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Remer, J. R.


Eales, J. F.
Kimball, L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Eastwood, J. F.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Latham, Sir P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Ellis, Sir G.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Elliston, G. S.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Emery, J. F.
Leckie, J. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salmon, Sir I.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, E. W.


Entwistle, C. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Levy, T.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lewis, O.
Sandys, E. D.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Liddall, W. S.
Savery, Servington


Everard, W. L.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Scott, Lord William


Fleming, E. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Foot, D. M.
Lloyd, G. W.
Selley, H. R.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Loftus, P. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Furness, S. N.
Lyons, A. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Ganzonl, Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Simmonds, O. E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gluckstein, L. H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Goldie, N. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Smithers, Sir W.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
McKie, J. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Maitland, A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mander, G. le M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maxwell, S. A.
Spens, W. P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stanley, Rr. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Storey, S.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morgan, R. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Guy, J. C. M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Tate, Mavis C.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Munro, P.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hannah, I. C.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harbord, A.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Harris, Sir P. A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Titchfield, Marquess of


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Touche, G. C.


Halsam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Owen, Major G.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Patrick, C. M.
Turton, R. H.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Peake, O.
Wakefield, W. W.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peat, C. U.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Penny, Sir G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Holdsworth, H.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Holmes, J. S.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Petherick, M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hopkinson, A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Plugge, L. F.
Wells, S. R.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
White, H. Graham


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Procter, Major H. A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hulbert, N. J.
Radford, E. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hunter, T.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wise, A. R.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ramsbotham, H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wragg, H.


Jackson, Sir H.
Rankin, R.



Joel, D. J. B.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Waterhouse.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)








NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, G. D.
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bevan, A.
Holland, A.
Rowson, G.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
John, W.
Short, A.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marklew, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1936.

That a sum, not exceeding £25,486,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:




£


2.
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
5,984,000


3.
Medical Services
987,000


4.
Educational Establishments
947,000


5.
Quartering and Movements
1,417,000

£


6.
Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts
4,410,000


7.
Clothing
1,143,000


8.
General Stores
2,525,000


9.
Warlike Stores
7,185,000


12.
War Office
888,000




£25,486,000"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 332; Noes, 105.

Division No. 317.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Blair, Sir R.
Channon, H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Blindell, Sir J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Christie, J. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Clarke, F. E.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bracken, B.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brass, Sir W.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.


Assheton, R.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Colman, N. C. D.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Bull, B. B.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Butler, R. A.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Craddock, Sir R. H.


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cranborne, Viscount


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Crooke, J. S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Carver, Major W. H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cary, R. A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Cross, R. H.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Crossley, A. C.


Bernays, R. H.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Culverwell, C. T.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)




Davison, Sir W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Dawson, Sir P.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rankin, R.


De Chair, S. S.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


De la Bère, R.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunter, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Doland, G. F.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Donner, P. W.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Joel, D. J. B.
Remer, J. R.


Drewe, C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duggan, H. J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Dunglass, Lord
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Kimball, L.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Eales, J. F.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Eastwood, J. F.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Salmon, Sir I.


Eckersley, P. T.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Salt, E. W.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Latham, Sir P.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Leckie, J. A.
Sandys, E. D.


Ellis, Sir G.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Savery, Servington


Elliston, G. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scott, Lord William


Emery, J. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lewis, O.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Entwistle, C. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lloyd, G. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Everard, W. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Simmonds, O. E.


Fleming, E. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Foot, D. M.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lyons, A. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Somerville, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Furness, S. N.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Ganzonl, Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Spens, W. P.


Gluckstein, L. H.
McKie, J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Goldie, N. B.
Maitland, A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Storey, S.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mander, G. le M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Maxwell, S. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tate, Mavis C.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Morgan, R. H.
Touche, G. C.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Munro, P.
Turton, R. H.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hannah, I. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Harbord, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Owen, Major G.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wells, S. R.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, C. M.
White, H. Graham


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peat, C. U.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Penny, Sir G.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Petherick, M.
Wise, A. R.


Holdsworth, H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Holmes, J. S.
Plugge, L. F.
Wragg, H.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.



Hopkinson, A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Radford, E. A.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Waterhouse.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ramsbotham, H.








NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardle, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bevan, A.
Holland, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Short, A.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobble, W.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, G. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Paling and Mr. John.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1936.

That a sum, not exceeding £6,631,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:




£


2.
Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies and Transportation
2,838,000


5.
Medical Services
368,000


6.
Technical Training and Educational Services
657,000

£


7.
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
557,000


9.
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
817,000


10.
Air Ministry
950,000


11.
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
444,000




£6,631,000"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 325; Noes, 105.

Division No. 318.]
AYES.
[11.25 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Bernays, R. H.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Blair, Sir R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Blindell, Sir J.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Allen, Lt.-Col J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Boulton, W. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Channon, H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bracken, B.
Christie, J. A.


Assheton, R.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Brass, Sir W.
Clarke, F. E.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Astor, Hon., W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Colman, N. C. D.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bull, B. B.
Colville, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Butler, R. A.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Craddock, Sir R. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Carver, Major W. H.
Cranborne, Viscount


Belt, Sir A. L.
Cary, R. A.
Crooke, J. S.




Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rankin, R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cross, R. H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hulbert, N. J.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Davison, Sir W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Dawson, Sir P.
Hunter, T.
Remer, J. R.


De Chair, S. S.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


De la Bère, R.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jackson, Sir H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Doland, G. F.
Joel, D. J. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Donner, P. W.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Drewe, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Salt, E. W.


Duggan, H. J.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Latham, Sir P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Dunglass, Lord
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandys, E. D.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Leckie, J. A.
Savery, Servington


Eales, J. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Scott, Lord William


Eastwood, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Eckersley, P. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Selley, H. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Levy, T.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lewis, O.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Ellis, Sir G.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Elliston, G. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Emery, J. F.
Lloyd, G. W.
Simmonds, O. E.


Emmott, C. E. C. G.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loftus, P. C.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Entwistle, C. F.
Lyons, A. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Everard, W. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Foot, D. M.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Spens, W. P.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Furness, S. N.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maitland, A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Ganzonl, Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Storey, S.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, G. le M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Maxwell, S. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Goldie, N. B.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Sutcliffe, H.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Tate, Mavis C.


Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morgan, R. H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Touche, G. C.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Turton, R. H.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terrence J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Guy, J. C. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Owen, Major G.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hannah, I. C.
Patrick, C. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peake, O.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Harbord, A.
Peat, C. U.
Wells, S. R.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
White, H. Graham


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Halsam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Plugge, L. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wise, A. R.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wragg, H.


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Radford, E. A.



Holdsworth, H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Holmes, J. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Sir George Penny and Mr. James


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Stuart.


Hopkinson, A.
Ramsden, Sir E.








NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bevan, A.
Holland, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Short, A.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobble, W.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, the sum of £389,071,026 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.38 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: On the Second Reading I raised the question of the Tea Duty and asked whether it was being imposed for the same reason as it was imposed in this country, namely, in order to make people realise that we are engaged in

spending money on more armaments. I want to ask why the duty is being imposed before the people in the Isle of Man in their Legislature have had an opportunity of discussing it? I realise that they have called a consultative committee and are later to have a joint meeting of the House of Keys and the Tynwald, but it is unsatisfactory that they cannot obtain tea from bond until a resolution has been passed and they are in a difficulty because of the imposition of the duty. Again, what is the reason for the varying dates, some from 13th May, some from 10th June, and others from 7th March? Clause 10 gives the Commissioners power to make regulations for preventing an evasion of the duty. Who are the Commissioners? I hope that in the future some better method will be adopted, and that we shall not impose these duties without the people in the Isle of Man having a voice in what they have to pay.

11.40 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I acknowledge the forbearance of the hon. Member, and I think it is only proper that I should say a few words in reply to the questions he has asked. In the first place, the hon. Member asked why


we impose this Tea Duty on the Isle of Man. The short answer is that the Isle of Man Legislature, the Tynwald, imposes the duty on the Isle of Man. All that this Bill does is to ratify the resolutions of the Tynwald of the Isle of Man, dated 12th May and 9th June. The hon. Member asked why there are various dates for the commencement of these duties, and again the answer is to be found in the procedure of the Isle of Man Legislature. The Isle of Man passes Customs resolutions in its Tynwald which have the same effect as our Budget resolutions, and have subsequently to be confirmed. The reason there are various dates is that these resolutions were, in fact, passed on various dates in the Legislature of the Isle of Man.
The hon. Member then referred to Clause 10, and asked what the term "Commissioners" means. It means, as he himself suggested, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and the reason the full title is not set out in the Clause is to be found in the Isle of Man Customs Act, 1932, which contains a definition of the word "Commissioners" and provides that in that Act and every subsequent Act dealing with the Isle of Man customs, when the word "Commissioners" is used it is to be understood as meaning His Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Revenue.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I assume that the Isle of Man Tynwald receives the proceeds of these Customs. Is there any relationship between the Customs Duties imposed and the expenses to the Isle of Man? Is there any surplus or deficit, and if so, how is it dealt with?

11.43 p.m.

Mr. MORRISON: I can speak only by leave of the House. The Isle of Man Exchequer is a separate entity, and the proceeds of these Customs, if the House ratifies them, will go into the Isle of Man Exchequer.

Mr. KELLY: Not all of them, surely?

Mr. MORRISON: It would not be proper for me on this occasion to launch out into an exposition of the somewhat technical financial relations obtaining between the two Exchequers. The broad answer to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) is that these

duties are imposed by the Tynwald, and the proceeds of them go into the Exchequer of the Isle of Man.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(General provisions as to orders constituting port health districts, united districts, and joint boards.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 4, at the end, add:
(3) Any reference in this Act to an order constituting a port health district, united district, or joint board shall be construed as including a reference to any order made under this section for the amendment of the original order."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 45.—(Buildings having defective closets capable of repair.)

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, in page 34, line 40, at the end, to insert:
or of their decision to address their notice to him and not to the occupier or, as the case may be, the owner of the building.
This Amendment relates to proceedings by a local authority against an owner or occupier or against another party, and is little more than a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 46 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 67.—(Power to refer questions arising under building by-laws to the Minister.)

11.47 p.m.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: I beg to move, in page 52, line 34, to leave out from "determination," to "shall," in line 35, and to insert "whose decision."
This Clause provides that in cases where an owner of property and a local authority agree to refer to the Minister of Health a question of whether building by-laws have been complied with or not, the Minister may or may not accept the reference and decide the question. This Amendment would have the effect of making it compulsory on the Minister to deal with the matter, if both parties desire him to do so. It is, I submit, a helpful Amendment and one which will make the position clear both to local authorities and owners of property.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: I support the Amendment which, if carried will have the effect of preventing protracted disputes and litigation between local authorities and owners of property as to whether building plans are in accordance with the by-laws and whether the completed buildings are in conformity with the original building plans. Further, I am sure the Amendment will be acceptable to the National Federation of Property Owners.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Government are prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment and the local authorities have agreed to it. I suggest, however, as a matter of drafting that it should be in this form—to leave out from "and," in line 34, to "shall," in line 35, and insert "the Minister's decision."

Sir P. HANNON: I am prepared to move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 52, line 34, leave out from "and" to "shall," in line 35, and insert "the Minister's decision."—[Sir P. Hannon.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 68 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 83.—(Cleansing of filthy or verminous premises.)

Amendment made: In page 61, line 40, at the end, insert:
or of their decision to address their notice to him and not to the occupier or, as the case may be, the owner of the premises."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 84 to 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 89.—(Power to require sanitary conveniences to be provided at inns, refreshment houses, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 65, line 27, at the end, add:
or of their decision to address their notice to him and not to the occupier or, as the case may be, the owner of the premises."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 90.—(Interpretation of Part II.)

Amendments made: In page 65, line 31, at the end, insert:
'cesspool' includes a settlement tank or other tank for the reception or disposal of foul matter from buildings.

In page 66, line 16, after "Water," insert "either."

In line 17, at the end, insert "or by automatic action."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 92.—(Statutory nuisances.)

11.54 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 68, line 27, after "deposit," to insert:
(including refuse from a coal mine liable to spontaneous combustion).
I move this Amendment for the purpose of finding out what powers there are under the Act. Everyone knows that there are a large number of burning pit heaps, but I am not aware that there has been a single prosecution. It would appear that the local authorities are not aware of their powers, and I am anxious to find out what methods they must adopt to take action against the people responsible for the burning pit heaps. I am also anxious to get into the Bill power to deal with this matter before the fire breaks out. Any deposit from a coal mine will burst into flame after a certain time because of the intense heat generated. My object is to try to adopt means to prevent this happening, if it is at all possible, because when a heap takes fire, it is very difficult to get the colliery owners to do anything, owing to the excessive cost involved. The result is that it has to burn out, and for a long, long


time the inhabitants of the neighbourhood have to stand the fumes arising. I realise that it would be very difficult to get the Act materially altered, and I do not expect it, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee what are the present powers under the Act. If he will do that, I have no intention of pressing my Amendment, but I do want it made as clear as possible what the authorities can do under the Act. If that were clearly stated, I think that in itself would be a warning to the colliery owners that they cannot go on as they have been doing in the past, and the local authoririties would also know that they have powers to deal with this matter.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I thank the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) for the reasonable presentation of his case, with which I have much sympathy. He asked what are the powers of an aggrieved person in an area where there is one of these smoking refuse heaps. Well, the remedy lies in Clause 92, whereby the aggrieved person or the local authority can go to the magistrate to get an order to abate the nuisance. He will see that a list of duties is set forth in that Clause. The part which interests him in this connection is that which says:
any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance.
I do not think the Amendment would strengthen the wording of the Clause. Indeed, it might narrow it, because a refuse heap is clearly covered by the word "deposit." If the medical officer of health in the district came to the conclusion that a certain refuse heap is "a deposit prejudicial to health," then he would report that opinion to the local authority, whose duty it would be to set the law into operation and to go to a magistrate to try and get an order to abate the nuisance. The difficulty in the way, of course, is this, that if an order were granted, the colliery company would have a very great burden placed upon it in abating the nuisance, and for that reason it might be that certain local authorities would be very loth to act. Nevertheless, I think the hon. Member for Leigh has done right in raising this point. There is a good deal of research work going on in this matter, and one hears of collieries where they have tried

various ways, which the hon. Member knows better than I do, whereby this nuisance can be abated. As far as the law is concerned, it is clearly set forth here, and more clearly than before in this Clause. I shall be pleased to discuss any particular case with the hon. Member, to see what, if anything, can be done about it.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. POTTS: The whole trouble in this matter arises from the fact that to take the course suggested, of trying to put the law into operation, is, practically speaking, an impossibility on the ground that the burning has become a nuisance to the tenants living in close proximity. If representations are made to the local authority and they make a report that a pit heap on fire is a nuisance, notice to quit is given to the tenants of houses in the vicinity, and the tenants have nowhere to go. That has happened in my own area. It is no good pressing owners to move these heaps because they cannot do it without spending hundreds of pounds. They want to be tackled from the beginning and prohibited by law.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is to be congratulated on pressing this question so frequently. I have always taken the view that Clause 92—which was Section 91 of the 1875 Act—covers this issue in paragraph (a) or paragraph (c). If the local authorities would only do their duty and initiate the necessary proceedings, the nuisance would be abated. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to impress on local authorities that it is their duty to carry out the Act of Parliament.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 (Service of abatement notice) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 94.—(Power of court to make nuisance order if abatement notice disregarded.)

12.3 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 71, line 10, to leave out Subsection (4).
This Sub-section carries forward part of the Act of 1875, but scientific development has advanced since then and it should no longer be in the Bill. If people who allow these accumulations satisfy the magistrates that they are necessary for the carrying on of their business, although they are a nuisance, they are allowed to continue them. The time has come when, if they are a nuisance, they ought to be stopped. Scientific development has reached such a stage that there is no need for these accumulations to be a nuisance.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think that from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman it would be a mistake to delete this Sub-section. When the aggrieved person or local authority goes to the magistrates to get an order against a certain undertaking, the undertaking must not only show that the accumulation of refuse was necessary for the purpose of carrying on the business, but that the best practicable means had been taken to prevent it being prejudicial to public health. If no steps had been taken to render the heap innocuous, the defence would fail and the order would be made.

Mr. TINKER: Although that explanation is not entirely satisfactory, I do not want to call a Division, and I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 95 to 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 107.—(Restriction on establishment of offensive trade in urban districts).

12.6 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to move, in page 76, line 27, to leave out from "within," to "establishes," in line 31, and to insert "the district of a local authority."
The object of this Amendment and the following Amendments, which are consequential to it, is to give rural districts power to deal with offensive trades. Urban districts and others have such powers, and I should have thought that when the law was being consolidated rural districts might have had the same authority extended to them. Many rural

districts are fully urban in character, and often have as big a population as urban areas and are quite as much entitled to these powers. Further, it is most desirable that effective means should be in the possession of the rural authorities to preserve the amenities and the beauty of the countryside so that townspeople may enjoy them. While urban districts can prevent a factory where an offensive trade is to be carried on from being erected in the district, or relegate it to some part of the district, where it will not be a nuisance, rural districts have no such power, and a factory might be started which would entirely ruin the rural character of an area. I should like to know what are the powers of rural districts under the existing law. How is the authority in a rural area to know that it is proposed to start a factory there? Has any notice to be given to the rural authority? This is important because a rural authority apparently have certain powers under the Public Health Act, 1875, provided the Minister declares that the provisions of Section 112 of that Act have been put into force there.
I only wish to add that there has been considerable opposition from outside to the request I am now making, especially from the Federation of British Industries. I was sorry to hear of that, because the members of that great organisation, both collectively and individually, have done a great deal to preserve the beauties of the countryside. I am sorry, too, that other associations who are keenly interested in this question and in many instances are members of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, should not associate themselves with the endeavours of the rural districts to maintain the beauty of the countryside. If the Minister could give a reassuring reply that the matter could be dealt with by future legislation it would be possible for the Federation of British Industries and the rural district councils to get together to talk things over.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sorry that we cannot accept this or any of the consequential Amendments to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That volume of "Hear, hears" shows how controversial


the Amendment is, quite apart from its merits. This is a consolidation Bill. The points the hon. and gallant Member has put forward were not even submitted by rural district councils and their association before the Joint Select Committee. Clearly I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member a reply on the question of future legislation, but let me give him this assurance. He referred to rural districts becoming urbanised. The Minister is always sympathetic in such cases, and if they apply for urban powers and make good their case, I give the assurance that their applications will be treated sympathetically.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. I only wish to add that the Rural District Councils put their case to the Ministry of Health and trusted the Ministry of Health to do what they had done in many similar cases. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 77, line 29, leave out the second "by."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 108 to 160, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 161.—(Power of Minister to make regulations as to disposal of dead bodies.)

Amendment made: In page 115, line 8, leave out "a," and insert "the."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 162 to 169 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 170.—(Power of justice to order detention in hospital of infected person without proper lodging to return to.)

Amendment made: In page 119, line 18, leave out "local authority," and insert "council."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 171 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 172.—(Removal to hospital of infectious persons suffering from tuberculosis of the respiratory tract.)

Amendment made: In page 120, line 39, after "making," insert "an."

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 173 and 174, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 175.—(Special provisions with respect to treatment of tuberculous seamen.)

Amendments made: In page 122, line 23, leave out from the second "of," to "so," in line 27, and insert:
the Seamen's Special Fund for which provision is made by section one hundred and thirty-eight of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936.

In line 32, leave out "1924," and insert "1936."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 176 to 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 180.—(Qualifications for certain appointments in connection with tuberculosis and venereal disease.)

Amendment made: In page 124, line 22, at the end, add:
(3) This section, except in so far as it relates to appointments in connection with the treatment of tuberculosis, shall extend to London."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 181 to 268 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 269.—(Power of local authority to control use of moveable dwellings.)

12.16 a.m.

Mr. GROVES: I beg to move, in page 172, line 16, to leave out "belonging," and to insert, "which belongs."
The object of this Amendment and the following Amendment in my name is to remedy what I think was an inadvertence in not excepting, from the provisions as to restrictions and licences, showmen who regularly use their caravans exclusively for the purposes of their business and livelihood.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We have pleasure in accepting these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 172, line 20, leave out "while it is being," and insert "and which is regularly."—[Mr. Groves.]

In page 174, line 7, at the end, add:
or, as the case may be, shall be repealed as respects the district of that authority."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 270 to 297 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 298.—(Restriction on right to prosecute.)

Amendment made: In page 189, line 4, leave out from the first "or," to the end of the Clause, and add:
a council or a body whose function it is to enforce the provisions or by-laws in question, or by whom or by whose predecessors the by-law in question was made."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 299 to 332 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 333.—(Protection for works of dock undertakers and for railways.)

Amendments made: In page 204, line 19, leave out "or."

At the end, insert:
or lock, or any land which belongs to dock undertakers and is held or used by them for the purposes of their undertaking."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 334 to 342 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 343.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 210, leave out lines 6 to 8.—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 211, line 32, to leave out "measles."

12.20 a.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I moved this Amendment in the Joint Select Committee. There is a great deal to be said for making measles notifiable but, having inquired generally as regards the practical effect of it, I find that on the whole it is better to leave it as it is where it may be made notifiable with certain restrictions as occasion requires. I approve of the elimination of the

Amendment that I originally moved in the Select Committee.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am looking at this from the point of view of the general public. There can be no question that, while we have made great progress in medical science in all sorts of directions, we know practically no more about measles to-day than we did 50 years ago except that the sequelae are very often all sorts of things connected with eyes and ears, and some of us hope that this Amendment will be left in the Act of Parliament so that, if measles were made notifiable, it might direct the attention of a great number of people to the necessity of making an extended enquiry into the causes and the results of the disease. I hope that the matter will be looked into again at an early date and that we shall have an opportunity of seeing whether something cannot be done to stir up public opinion on the subject of measles.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 344 to 346 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 347.—(Short title, date of commencement, and extent.)

12.23 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 217, line 11, to leave out "April," and to insert "October."
This is to postpone the date of operation of the Bill to give local authorities more time to frame by-laws.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 217, line 15, leave out "sub-section (3)."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) (Legal proceedings in connection with the exercise of Statutory powers) is out of order.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendments made: In page 225, line 34, column 3, leave out from "eighty-seven," to "section," in line 39, and insert:
sub-section (1) of Section one hundred and five, so far as it relates to epidemic regulations.

In page 229, line 27, column 3, leave out from "eighty-seven," to "section," in line 32, and insert:
sub-section (1) of Section one hundred and five, so far as it relates to epidemic regulations.

In page 230, line 3, column 3, at the end, insert:
and Section four, so far as it relates to expenses incurred under Section two.

In line 8, at the end, insert:


19 &amp; 20 Geo. 5. c. 17.
The Local Government Act, 1929.
In Section fifty-nine the words from "or any regulations" to "1891."


—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL [Lords.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Appeals.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.27 a.m.

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I wish to draw attention to this Clause for a very particular reason. The Report of the Consolidation Committee, referring to this Clause, states that the position appears to be obscure, and that the only means of exactly revising the law is to reproduce precisely the law as it stands, as nobody apparently knows what it does mean. I submit that the object of consolidation is to make the law clear, as well as to consolidate it, and if the opinion of the Consolidation Committee is that the position is so obscure upon a matter of great importance to His Majesty's subjects, namely, whether the local authority must give or refuse permission when called upon, it should be part of the duty either of the Government or the Department concerned, or of the Consolidation Committee, to make the law clear. There have been three or four Consolidation Bills during the last two or three months in which the same statement is made, in the smallest print known to the Stationery Office, that the law is

unsatisfactory and is no better than before it was consolidated, and that the position is so obscure that even the Consolidation Committee do not know what it is, and, therefore, they reproduce the law in the same unsatisfactory way. Consolidation on these lines is far less satisfactory than consolidation on the lines upon which we have just had the satisfaction of passing the Public Health Bill, where the Committee had power to make such necessary Amendments as would improve the law and give it clarity and conciseness.

12.29 a.m.

Major MILNER: As one who sat for some years upon this and other Consolidation Committees, I should like to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) has said with regard to powers being given to Consolidation Committees to carry out, at any rate, minor Amendments which would result in uniformity and clarity and a number of other advantages.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that on a Consolidation Bill we cannot go into Amendments to the Bill.

Major MILNER: I am not proposing to do that. I am merely supporting the hon. Gentleman's remarks on this particular matter with which I entirely agree.

Clauses 16 to 191 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 12 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Chelmsford, which was presented on the 13th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Narborough, Blaby, Enderby, and Whetstone Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 13th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which was presented on the 8th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Wellingborough Gas Light Company, Limited, which was presented on the 9th day of July and published, be approved."—[Captain Hudson.]

Orders of the Day — SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Perhaps the Committee will excuse me if I speak for only a couple of minutes, as the hour is late, on the Amendments made in another place. When the Bill was passing through this House on Third Reading it was pointed out that there were certain matters that would require very careful consideration and that local authorities would have to be consulted. The Amendments inserted in another place are the result of the consultations undertaken by the Home Office with local authorities and the interested parties, and with the promoters, and are also due to the scrutiny undertaken by the Home Office and the Parliamentary draftsmen, in order, as it were, to lick certain Clauses into shape. I would emphasise this point, however, that the Amendments as inserted in another place do not modify the main principles of the Bill as passed by this House unanimously on Third Reading. I would add that the Amendments fall into two main categories.
There are a great mass of drafting Amendments. Clause 5 has been completely taken out and re-drafted, but it remains the same with one exception, that in one respect it has been strengthened for establishing a tribunal to prevent evasion. The main other Amendments have been inserted generally after consultation, with the local authorities, to prevent undue hardship upon the public, especially in holiday resorts, and to prevent undue hardship upon smallholders selling the produce they produce at the spot they produce it. I will not detain the House longer at this hour, but I do feel that many many hours have been spent over this Bill and much labour undertaken by those interested belonging to all parties. I feel that the Amendments, voluminous as they appear, are absolutely in harmony with the Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Before the hon. Member sits down, would he explain in connection with Clause 2, which is a very important Clause, what Clause he puts in its place?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): Perhaps the hon. Member will deal with that when we reach it.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I say one or two words? I have taken part in all the proceedings on this Bill from the commencement, and I want to say on behalf of those of us who sit on this side of the House who are connected with shop assistants that we were a little apprehensive when we saw some of these Amendments. But in view of the fact that if there is any opposition to them the Bill may be lost, we are accepting the Amendments because the Bill as a whole will do great service for the millions of shop assistants employed in this country.

12.39 a.m.

Sir A. WILSON: I do not propose to oppose the Amendments which we are are considering, but I cannot allow the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me to pass without saying a word or two to explain the feeling of dismay with which I have read the Lords Amendments in relation to three points. One is in relation to smallholders and others who are allowed to sell their


produce on the spot on which they produce it, with the result that if the smallholder has a plot adjoining the Great North Road he will be at liberty to sell, but if he is unfortunate enough to have a plot elsewhere he will be unable to sell. I hope that is not the meaning of the Clause, but I fear it is, and I earnestly hope that the ingenuity of the Home Office may find some way, by instruction or otherwise, to enable it to be possible under the Amendments we have before us for smallholders to sell their produce by the roadside at no considerable distance from their holdings, provided they sell nothing but that which they do produce. It is a very important point for some of us.
The second point has relation to the extension of Sunday opening to 18 weeks of the year in holiday resorts. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has spoken of the millions of shop assistants who will benefit from this Bill. If my anticipations are realised, there will be a great number of shop assistants, greater than ever before, employed on Sunday in consequence of the orgy of Sunday opening which will inevitably follow the passing of this Bill. We are imposing heavy and unreasonable obligations on local authorities by requiring them under this Clause to carry out a whole series of plebiscites of shopkeepers under, roughly, a whole series of trades. I think it will cause bad blood. I believe that it will be very far from serving the cause of Sunday trading restriction which this Bill purports by its Title to forward.
My third point is in relation to the new Clause relating to the exemption of conscientious Jews. I, myself, proposed that the Jewish Board of Deputies should be brought in, but when I see what I see in the new Amendment, and that it is for the local authorities, if they think fit, to refer the matter to the Jewish Board of Deputies, we are going far on a very dangerous road. There have never been so many Jews engaged in the retail trade as now. There is no law by which they must be even British subjects. I hope that that may be prescribed. There is a loophole for it. We do not know to where this Amendment may lead if the Bill be passed. The only reason I am opposing this now is that if I do not

do it to-day, the Amendments will be passed to-morrow.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Closing of Shops on Sunday.)

Lords Amendment: in line 7, at the end, insert:
Provided that a shop may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday—

(a) for the purposes of any transaction mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act; and
(b) until after the expiration of nine months from the commencement of this Act for the purposes of any transaction mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act."

12.42 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As one who has for a quarter of a century taken an interest in this movement, I would like to express my thanks to the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) and also the representative of the official Opposition for the handsome attitude they have taken about this complicated Bill and all the Amendments. An immense amount of study has been given to this subject and an immense amount of negotiation has taken place to get the Bill through.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I imagined the right hon. Gentleman was getting up to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." At present there is no question before the House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I wished to express my obligation for the attitude the hon. and gallant Member has taken.

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

CLAUSE 2.—(Exemption for certain trades or businesses.)

Lords Amendment: In line 8, leave out Clause 2.

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

12.44 a.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I understand that this is simply leaving out a complete Clause,


but we are entitled to some explanation of the character of the proposed substitute. It should be made clear how far the Bill is changed or remains as it was.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): This is in fact a purely drafting alteration. The relevant provisions are partly in Clauses 1 and 4. There is no alteration in substance.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 3, line 6, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After new Clause A, insert new Clause B (Provisions as to shops where several trades or businesses are carried on.)
Where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop and any of those trades or businesses consist only of transactions of such a nature that if they were the only transactions carried on in the shop the provisions of this Act requiring the shop to be closed for the serving of customers for the whole or any part of Sunday would not apply to the shop, the shop may be kept open for the whole or any part of Sunday, as the case may be, for the purposes of those transactions alone, subject, however, to such conditions as may be prescribed.

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir P. HARRIS: May we have some explanation? We are simply passing Clauses and it is not made clear wherein they differ from the original Clauses. I do not wish to obstruct.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. LLOYD: This new Clause deals chiefly with the consumption of refreshments off the premises. Exemption was allowed for such premises as restaurants and cafes where there was a substantial trade. Representations were made that these restrictive exemptions would give rise to hardship in regard to the sale of ham and beef by ham and beef shops, and that street vendors would suffer hardship in regard to the sale of whelks and such things. It was therefore essential that special provision should be made in this new Clause.

Sir P. HARRIS: That means that the Bill is substantially changed for the better.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 3, line 17, agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provision for Jewish traders.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 33, leave out Clause 5 and insert new Clause D.—(Special provisions for persons observing the Jewish Sabbath.)

".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the occupier of any shop who is a person of the Jewish religion shall be entitled, upon making to the local authority an application in accordance with the provisions of this Section, to have the shop registered under this Section by the local authority, and so long as the shop is so registered then—

(a) the shop shall be closed for all purposes connected with trade or business on Saturday; and
(b) the provisions of this Act requiring the shop to be closed for the serving of customers on Sunday shall not apply until two o'clock in the afternoon; and
(c) there shall be kept conspicuously placed in the shop a notice stating that it will be closed on Saturday and, if the shop will be upon for the serving of customers on Sunday after two o'clock in the afternoon for the purposes of any transaction for which it is permitted under this Act to be so open, specifying the hours during which and the purposes for which it will be so open.

(2) Any application for the registration of a shop under this Section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be accompanied—

(a) by a statutory declaration made by the occupier of the shop in such form as may be prescribed declaring that he conscientiously objects on religious grounds to carrying on trade or business on the Jewish Sabbath; and
(b) by such further statutory or other declarations and certificates, if any, made by such persons, and in such form, as may be prescribed.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a shop occupied by a partnership or company shall be deemed to be occupied by a person of the Jewish religion if the majority of partners or of the directors, as the case may be, are persons of that religion, but not otherwise; and such a shop shall not be registered under this Section unless the statutory declaration required by paragraph (a) of the last foregoing Sub-section is made by the majority of partners or directors and specifies the names and addresses of all the other partners or directors.
(4) If for the purpose of procuring the registration of any shop under this Section any person knowingly or recklessly makes an untrue statement or untrue representation he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(5) So long as a shop is registered under this Section—



(a) no other shop occupied by the same occupier shall be kept open for any purpose connected with trade or business on Saturday;
(b) no person by whom the statutory declaration aforesaid has been made in connection with the application for the registration of the shop shall be employed or engaged on the Jewish Sabbath about the business of any shop or shall so employ, or be directly concerned in the control or management of any partnership or company which so employs, any person.

(6) Where any person is convicted of a contravention of, or failure to comply with, any of the provisions of this Section the court may, in addition to any other penalty, order the registration of any shops occupied by him or by any partnership or company in the control or management of which he is directly concerned to be revoked:

Provided that the court shall not order the registration of any shop not occupied, or not occupied solely, by the person convicted to be revoked, except after affording an opportunity to the occupier or to the other occupiers, as the case may be, to appear and be heard.

(7) If upon representations made to them it appears to the local authority that there is reason to believe—

(a) that the occupier of any shop registered under this Section is not a person of the Jewish religion; or
(b) that a conscientious objection on religious grounds to carrying on business on the Jewish Sabbath is not genuinely held by the occupier of the shop, or in the case of a shop occupied by a partnership or company by the majority of the partners or of the directors, as the case may be;

the local authority may furnish particulars of the case to such tribunal as may, after consultation with the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews, be prescribed, and if that tribunal, after considering the case in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed report to the local authority that in their opinion the occupier of the shop is not a person of the Jewish religion or that such a conscientious objection is not so held as aforesaid, the local authority shall revoke the registration of the shop, and upon the revocation thereof the registration under this Section of all other shops occupied by the same occupier, whether in the area of that local authority or elsewhere, shall be deemed to be also revoked.

(8) In the event of any change in the occupation of a shop registered under this Section it shall be the duty of the person who becomes the occupier to serve on the local authority notice of the change, and in the event of any change in any partnership or among the directors of any company by which such a shop is occupied, it shall be the duty of the partnership, or of the company, as the case may be, to serve on the local authority a notice giving particulars of the change, and, whether or not such a notice is served, the registration

of the shop shall, upon the expiration of a period of fourteen days from the date on which the change occurred, be deemed to be cancelled, unless within that period, or within such further time as may be allowed by the local authority, a fresh application under this Section is made in respect of the shop:

Provided that, where such a fresh application is made by reason of a change in any partnership or among the directors of any company by which the shop is occupied, the local authority may dispense with the statutory or other declaration or certificates required by paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) and by Sub-section (3) of this Section in the case of any person who has made such a declaration in connection with a former application in respect of that shop or any other shop in the area of the local authority.

(9) The registration of any shop under this Section shall be cancelled upon application in that behalf being made to the local authority by the occupier of the shop but shall not be so cancelled during the period of twelve months from the date on which an application for registration of the shop was last made.

(10) Where an application is made to a local authority in accordance with the provisions of this Section for the registration of a shop under this Section—

(a) the local authority shall refuse to register the shop if the registration of that shop has been revoked or has been cancelled under the last foregoing Subsection while the shop was in the occupation of the applicant; and
(b) the local authority may refuse to register the shop if the registration of that shop or of any other shop occupied or formerly occupied by the applicant, or by any partnership or company of which he was a partner or director, has been revoked or cancelled.

(11) Where the local authority refuse to register a shop in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of the foregoing Sub-section, they shall serve notice of their refusal upon the applicant, and, if the applicant is aggrieved by such refusal, he may, within twenty-one days of the date when the notice was so served upon him, appeal against such refusal to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division in which the shop is situated, and the appellant or the local authority, if aggrieved by the order made by the court of summary jurisdiction, may appeal against that order to quarter sessions.

(12) This Section shall apply to persons who are members of any religious body regularly observing the Jewish Sabbath as it applies to persons of the Jewish religion, and references therein to persons of the Jewish religion shall be construed accordingly as including any person who is a member of such a body, and in the application of this Section to such persons this Section shall have effect as if for the reference


therein to the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews there were substituted a reference to such body as appears to the Secretary of State to represent such persons.

(13) As respects any shop which is for the time being registered under this Section the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1934, shall have effect subject to the following modifications (that is to say)—

(a) Sub-section (1) of Section one and Sub-section (1) of Section four of the Shops Act, 1912, shall have effect as if for references therein to weekdays there were substituted references to weekdays other than Saturdays; and
(b) Sub-section (2) of the said Section four shall have effect as if the word 'Friday' were substituted for the word 'Saturday' wherever the last-mentioned word occurs."

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

12.49 a.m.

Sir A. WILSON: On this Clause I beg to ask for a very brief explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary as to what are the points raised. We have hitherto in this country conceived the nation as a community into which anyone is admitted who adapts himself to its manners, customs and laws. We are now introducing something which has a very different purpose. In the new Clause a tribunal is to be prescribed. It is to be a tribunal constituted in consultation with the Jewish Board of Deputies. It is to be a tribunal not in accordance with our recognised rules of procedure. Is it to be public? The whole of this Clause, if it is not to become a danger, which it may become, depends upon what it is to be. We are faced for the first time in our long history with a tribunal the nature of which has not been specified. It is to be established by the Home Office in consultation with the British Board of Deputies for the benefit of the local authorities who may, or may not, be consulted. We know no more than we did when the Bill was in Standing Committee. We would be grateful for some explanation.

Mr. McKIE: There is just one point I wish to put. I wish to inquire if in the proposal under this Clause there is anything which affects the Amendment regarding the position of those many people—there are 300,000 of them who profess the Christian faith but observe the Jewish Sabbath.

Mr. LOFTUS: I can quite assure my hon. Friend that this does not affect the position.

12.51 a.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: Here, again, I wish to protest against this hole-and-corner way of dealing with this matter. We had a very full discussion in Committee on this matter and now at the 23rd hour at ten minutes to one we have an entirely new Clause raising very difficult issues brought before us. This Clause is raising a matter which affects the lives of thousands of our fellow-subjects. I do hope we shall have an explanation of the way in which the new Clause differs from the old Clause.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. LLOYD: I hope I shall be able to satisfy hon. Members. This Clause is the result of representations when the original Clause was introduced. I should say that because people are being treated in an exceptionally unpleasant way in other countries it is our business to treat them in an exceptionally different way in this country. The Clause is drafted in the form of a new Clause in order to avoid a considerable number of drafting Amendments. There is really one important way in which it differs from the old Clause. That is in Sub-section 7 in which there is provision made whereby a local authority, if they have reason to believe that a person taking advantage of the Clause is not a Jew, may refer the matter to a tribunal set up by the Jewish Board of Deputies. All those who were Members of the Standing Committee will, I think, appreciate this new provision. Hon. Members will recollect that this exemption should be confined to genuinely practising Jews, and should not be able to be utilised by anybody else and the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), in common with other Members, was anxious on this score. We were trying to devise an assurance and in order to make assurance doubly sure we devised a number of safeguards. There were mentioned in the knowledge of Members certain complicated arrangements such as might be made by one-man companies and it seemed almost impossible to devise a strictly legal proposal whereby these operations could be stopped. We have now been able to find in this Clause a method of letting this tribunal decide the question of whether or not there is a genuine conscientious


objection, and there is nobody better than an orthodox Jew in a system of this kind to decide questions of this nature. Everybody who has gone into this question will realise that there is nobody more anxious for this than those who are orthodox Jews.

Sir A. WILSON: Will the tribunal consist of those who are orthodox Jews?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes. It will be set up by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Jewish Board of Deputies. So far as this is concerned, it does not create a new precedent. There is an Act in existence and in the First Schedule it specifies the constitution of the Rabbinical Commission and, therefore we are not really creating any precedent.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I should like to ask one question. Is this to be confined to a London committee and, if that is so, are all cases to be confined to London?

Mr. LLOYD: We shall be in consultation with the Jewish Board of Deputies, who are in consultation with the whole country.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 3, agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Miscellaneous savings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 7, at the end, insert:
(5) If the local authority are satisfied that any person engaged in handicraft at his home is dependent for his livelihood upon the sale on Sunday of articles produced by him in the course of his handicraft to such extent that the prohibition of such sale would involve substantial hardship, they may grant to him a certificate exempting him during such period as may be specified in the certificate from any of the provisions of this Act in respect of the sale of those articles during such hours and subject to such conditions as may be so specified.

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir P. HARRIS: Could we have some explanation of this Sub-section?

1.0 a.m.

Mr. LLOYD: During the Committee stage in the House of Lords an Amendment was moved to deal with the question of rural sales, and it was withdrawn on an undertaking to consider the point.

The Rural Industries' Association has been consulted by the Home Office, and are of opinion that any general exemption is not required, but they are in favour of some provision to meet some of the cases of hardship such as that quoted by Lord Phillimore in the course of the Debate. The Amendment empowers a local authority to permit sales on Sunday in the case of a person engaged in a handicraft in his home, and who is dependent for his livelihood on Sunday sales, to such an extent that the prohibition of such sales would involve him in substantial hardship. It is considered that this Amendment would meet the points raised.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 11, line 31, agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Enforcement.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 37, leave out from "against" to "the" in line 38, and insert:
any of the following enactments, namely—

(a) the Act of the twenty-seventh year of His late Majesty King Henry the Sixth, chapter Five which restricts the holding of fairs and markets on certain days; or
(b)"

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

1.5 a.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I would like to ask for a word of explanation about the Act of the 27th year of His late Majesty King Henry the Sixth, chapter Five. Would the Under-Secretary kindly let us know what that Act means? I am conscious of being an historian, but my history does not go into an Act quite as old as that. Before we repeal such an Act we are entitled to know what we are repealing.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: The Act referred to restricts the holding of fairs and markets on certain days. It is in order to amend that particular Section of the Act of His late Majesty King Henry the Sixth.

Sir P. HARRIS: That is just the point. It may be some Statute old but historic. We ought to know what the Amendment does.

Mr. LOFTUS: I did know the answer, but at this late hour of the morning I frankly confess I cannot remember the details of this Act passed in the reign of "His late Majesty King Henry the Sixth."

Mr. LLOYD: My information is that this is a drafting Amendment. It has been recommended by the Parliamentary draftsmen. I think I am in a position to give an assurance that it is not conflicting with or making any inroads upon any historic Act.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 13, line 10, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Trades and businesses exempted from the provisions of Section One.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 1, leave out the First Schedule, and insert New Schedule A:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Transactions for the purposes of which a shop may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday.

1. The sale of—

(a) intoxicating liquors;
(b) meals or refreshments whether or not for consumption at the shop at which they are sold but not including the sale of fried fish and chips at a fried fish and chip shop;
(c) newly cooked provisions and cooked or partly cooked tripe;
(d) table waters, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery and ice-cream (including wafers and edible containers);
(e) flowers, fruit and vegetables (including mushrooms) other than tinned or bottled fruit or vegetables;
(f) milk and cream, not including tinned or dried milk or cream, but including clotted cream whether sold in tins or otherwise;
(g) medicines and medical and surgical appliances

(i) at any premises registered under Section twelve of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933; or
(ii) by any person who has entered into a contract with an insurance committee under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1924 to 1935, for the supply of drugs and appliances;

(h) aircraft, motor or cycle supplies, or accessories;
(i) tobacco and smokers' requisities;
(j) newspapers, periodicals and magazines;

(k) books and stationery from the bookstalls of such terminal and main line railway or omnibus stations, or at such aerodromes as may be approved by the Secretary of State;
(l) guide books, postcards, photographs, reproductions, photographic films and plates, and souvenirs—

(i) at any gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument under the control of a public authority or university; or
(ii) at any other gallery or museum, or any place of natural beauty or historic interest, or any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or aquarium, if and to the extent that the local authority certify that such sale is desirable in the interests of the public; or
(iii) in any passenger vessel within the meaning of Part II of the Finance (1909–1910) Act, 1910, while engaged in carrying passengers;

(m) photographs for passports;
(n) requisites for any game or sport at any premises or place where that game or sport is played or carried on;
(o) fodder for horses, mules, ponies and donkeys at any farm, stables, hotel or inn.

(2) The transaction of—

(a) post office business;
(b) the business carried on by a funeral undertaker."

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir F. FREMANTLE: What kind of tripe is this we are asked to bring in as the First Schedule?

1.7 a.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: Can we hear an explanation? I really think we ought to know, because hundreds of persons are going to be affected and I should like to know what alterations have been made in the Schedule, what new articles have been added, what are to be excluded, whether the hon. Member's tripe is to be included or excluded as an article of diet? I think we are entitled to some explanation.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: I would like the Under-Secretary to explain whether this will affect smallholders selling at the side of main roads.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not moving? I call upon the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus)


to move his Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (g, ii), to leave out "Acts, 1924 to 1935," and to insert "Act, 1936."

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Is the hon. Member an authority on tripe?

Mr. LOFTUS: Perhaps I might mention that I shall have to move a consequential Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendment, as amended, be agreed to."

Sir P. HARRIS: Can we have some explanation as to the way in which the Schedule is being altered?

1.10 a.m.

Mr. LOFTUS: I would point out that to avoid a large number of Amendments of a drafting character a new First Schedule has been put down. The main alterations of substance are: The exemption for the sale of meals has been extended so as to give a general exemption for meals and refreshments for consumption off the premises, subject to the provisions of the new Clause.
In (c) there is an exemption for newly-cooked provisions and cooked and partially cooked tripe. This follows the precedent of the Shops Act, 1928, and is intended to enable ham and beef shops to carry on their business. In (e) the word "fresh" has been removed before the words "flowers and vegetables" but tinned and dried milk and bottled fruit are not included. There is also an exemption for the supply of motor and cycle accessories. The word "necessary" has been dropped as adding nothing to the exemption.

Sir P. HARRIS: Why tripe, and not fried fish?

1.13 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I have on the Paper an Amendment to sub-paragraph (o), after the word "donkeys" to insert the words "or food for domestic animals." I fully accept and sympathise with the Amendment coming from another place which provides that donkeys, mules and ponies should get fodder if taken by their owners to another place—to a holiday resort for a day out. But I cannot understand the limitation which the Lords have imposed. If you agreed to my Amendment it would bring in food for domestic animals such as dogs. A dog is more likely to be taken by its owner.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Has this point been accepted by the promoters? If this becomes opposed business, it must come to an end.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: a: As I do not wish to hamper the passage of the Bill, I shall not move my Amendment.

Mr. LOFTUS: I beg to move as a consequential Amendment to the Bill, in Clause 9, page 10, line 18, to leave out "Acts, 1924 to 1935," and to insert "Act, 1936."

Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes after One o'Clock.